On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -419,7 +416,9 @@ static int __devinit omap2_mbox_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> #endif
> return 0;
>
> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2420) /* IVA */
> err_iva1:
> +#endif
> omap_mbox_unregister(&mbox_dsp_info);
Actually this seems to be wrong, shouldn't it be mbox_iva_info?
Perhaps this makes more sense:
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c
@@ -406,21 +406,18 @@ static int __devinit omap2_mbox_probe(struct
platform_device *pdev)
if (unlikely(!res)) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "invalid irq resource\n");
ret = -ENODEV;
- goto err_iva1;
+ goto err_dsp;
}
mbox_iva_info.irq = res->start;
ret = omap_mbox_register(&pdev->dev, &mbox_iva_info);
- if (ret)
- goto err_iva1;
+ if (ret) {
+ omap_mbox_unregister(&mbox_iva_info);
+ goto err_dsp;
+ }
}
#endif
return 0;
-#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2420) /* IVA */
-err_iva1:
- omap_mbox_unregister(&mbox_iva_info);
-#endif
-
err_dsp:
iounmap(mbox_base);
return ret;
Although there's really no point in calling omap_mbox_unregister if
omap_mbox_register fails. And the probe() function returns error,
shouldn't all the previous registrations be removed?
--
Felipe Contreras
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
