On Friday 30 August 2013 10:39 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Thursday 29 August 2013 10:50 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> In order to handle errata I688, a page of sram was reserved by doing a
>>>> static iotable map. Now that we use gen_pool to manage sram, we can
>>>> completely remove all of these static mappings and use gen_pool_alloc()
>>>> to get the one page of sram space needed to implement errata I688.
>>>>
>>>> Suggested-by: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@xxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxx>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> @@ -71,6 +72,21 @@ void omap_bus_sync(void)
>>>> }
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(omap_bus_sync);
>>>>
>>>> +static int __init omap4_sram_init(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct device_node *np;
>>>> + struct gen_pool *sram_pool;
>>>> +
>>>> + np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "ti,omap4-mpu");
>>>> + if (!np)
>>>> + pr_warn("%s:Unable to allocate sram needed to handle errata I688\n",
>>>> + __func__);
>>>> + sram_pool = of_get_named_gen_pool(np, "sram", 0);
>>>
>>> I haven't actually tested this, but if there is no 'sram' property defined...
>>>
>>>> + sram_sync = (void *)gen_pool_alloc(sram_pool, PAGE_SIZE);
>>>
>>> ... does this still behave properly?
>>
>> I guess not :(
>> of_get_named_gen_pool() ends up returning NULL, but passing NULL to gen_pool_alloc()
>> crashes. Will fix with the additional check for non-NULL sram_pool, thanks.
>
> OK, that's what I suspected. Thanks for checking/testing.
>
I miss-understood your comment initially. Now re-reading it, its clear now.
Regards,
Santosh
--
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
