Hi Santosh, On 3/17/2011 6:52 AM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux- arm-kernel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Aaro Koskinen Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 10:46 PM To: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tony@xxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Aaro Koskinen Subject: [PATCH 1/2] arm: mach-omap2: devices: fix omap3_l3_init() return value Fix the return value for the successful case. Signed-off-by: Aaro Koskinen<aaro.koskinen@xxxxxxxxx> --- arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c b/arch/arm/mach- omap2/devices.c index 0d2d6a9..d478f53 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ static int __init omap3_l3_init(void) WARN(IS_ERR(od), "could not build omap_device for %s\n", oh_name); - return PTR_ERR(od); + return IS_ERR(od) ? PTR_ERR(od) : 0; } postcore_initcall(omap3_l3_init);
Maybe we should initialize that before, because in theory the timer12 secure violation should have been captured easily with this code?
Regards, Benoit -- 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
