On 04/23/2012 05:53 AM, Hiroshi Doyu wrote:
> From: Hiroshi DOYU <hdoyu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This code was based on:
> "arch/microblaze/kernel/prom_parse.c"
> "arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_parse.c"
>
> "ibm," prefix could be supported with some modification.
That'd probably be a good idea. If it isn't supported, then this code
can't be used as a replacement for the PPC and Microblaze code.
> +int of_parse_dma_window(struct device_node *dn,
> + const char *propname, int index,
> + unsigned long *busno,
> + dma_addr_t *addr, size_t *size)
> +{
> + const __be32 *dma_window, *end;
> + int bytes, cur_index = 0;
> +
> + if (!dn || !propname || !addr || !size)
> + return -EINVAL;
Instead of erroring out if (!propname), perhaps:
if (!propname)
propname = "dma-window";
so that only drivers using bindings before this common binding was
defined actually need to write out the property name?
> diff --git a/include/linux/of_address.h b/include/linux/of_address.h
...
> +extern int of_parse_dma_window(struct device_node *dev,
> + const char *propname, int index,
> + unsigned long *busno,
> + dma_addr_t *phys, size_t *size);
This function has the same name as the PPC and Microblaze code it's
based on. Is that going to cause compile and link errors due to
duplicate symbol definitions?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
