On 19/04/17 15:28, Leo Yan wrote:
Hi Suzuki,
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 02:23:04PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
Hi Leo,
This version looks good to me. I have two minor comments below.
Thanks for reviewing. Will take the suggestions. Just check a bit for
last comment.
[...]
+static int debug_probe(struct amba_device *adev, const struct amba_id *id)
+{
+ void __iomem *base;
+ struct device *dev = &adev->dev;
+ struct debug_drvdata *drvdata;
+ struct resource *res = &adev->res;
+ struct device_node *np = adev->dev.of_node;
+ int ret;
+
+ drvdata = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*drvdata), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!drvdata)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ drvdata->cpu = np ? of_coresight_get_cpu(np) : 0;
+ if (per_cpu(debug_drvdata, drvdata->cpu)) {
+ dev_err(dev, "CPU%d drvdata has been initialized\n",
+ drvdata->cpu);
May be we could warn about a possible issue in the DT ?
So can I understand the suggestion is to add warning in function
of_coresight_get_cpu() when cannot find CPU number, and here directly
bail out?
No. One could have single CPU DT, where he doesn't need to provide the CPU number.
Hence, it doesn't make sense to WARN in of_coresight_get_cpu().
But when we hit the case above, we find that the some node was registered for
the given CPU (be it 0 or any other), which is definitely an error in DT. Due to
1) Hasn't specified the CPU number for more than one node
OR
2) CPU number duplicated in the more than one nodes.
Cheers
Suzuki
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
