Hi,
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Using devm_ioremap_resource() API should actually be preferred over
> devm_ioremap(), since the former request the mem region first and then
> gives back the ioremap'ed memory pointer.
> devm_ioremap_resource() calls request_mem_region(), therby preventing
> other drivers to make any overlapping call to the same region.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Although this patch and rest in the series are merged.
But i have got a doubt, so making this thread alive.
> ---
> drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c | 7 +++----
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c b/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
> index 9cf80cb..dec691d 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
> @@ -120,10 +120,9 @@ skip_phy:
>
> hcd->rsrc_start = res->start;
> hcd->rsrc_len = resource_size(res);
> - hcd->regs = devm_ioremap(&pdev->dev, res->start, hcd->rsrc_len);
> - if (!hcd->regs) {
> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to remap I/O memory\n");
> - err = -ENOMEM;
> + hcd->regs = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
Here, we replaced devm_ioremap() call with devm_ioremap_resource(),
which internally
requests the memory region and then does a "devm_ioremap()" or
"devm_ioremap_nocache()"
based on the check for IORESOURCE_CACHEABLE flag.
But this flag is not set for the resource of this device.
So should we be explicitly setting the flag in driver ?
The query goes for other patches too in this series, wherein
devm_ioremap() call is replaced with devm_ioremap_resource().
[snip]
--
Best Regards
Vivek Gautam
Samsung R&D Institute, Bangalore
India
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
