On 03/06/2013 04:59 PM, Andrew Chew wrote: >> From: linux-tegra-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-tegra- >> owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stephen Warren >> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 3:43 PM >> To: Andrew Chew >> Cc: Peter De Schrijver; linux-tegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm- >> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Stephen Warren; Prashant Gaikwad; Mike >> Turquette; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: tegra: provide dummy cpu car ops >> >> On 03/06/2013 04:20 PM, Andrew Chew wrote: >>>> Subject: [PATCH] clk: tegra: provide dummy cpu car ops >>>> >>>> tegra_boot_secondary() relies on some of the car ops. This means >>>> having an uninitialized tegra_cpu_car_ops will lead to an early boot panic. >>>> Providing a dummy struct avoids this and makes adding Tegra114 clock >>>> support in a bisectable way a lot easier. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Stephen, >>>> >>>> Should this be a separate patch or should I make this part of new >>>> release of the Tegra114 clock series? >> >> I'm not sure if I answered this. Peter, I intend to apply this patch to a branch >> right before the CCF, so there's no explicit need to include it in the series, >> although if you do, that's fine. >> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk.c index >> >>>> /* Global data of Tegra CPU CAR ops */ -struct tegra_cpu_car_ops >>>> *tegra_cpu_car_ops; >>> >>> Sorry for bringing this up so late... >>> Shouldn't the above be "struct tegra_cpu_car_ops tegra_cpu_car_ops;"? >>> >>>> +static struct tegra_cpu_car_ops *dummy_car_ops; struct >>>> +tegra_cpu_car_ops *tegra_cpu_car_ops = &dummy_car_ops; >> >> No, the value is used as a pointer in include/linux/clk/tegra.h, e.g.: >> >> tegra_cpu_car_ops->wait_for_reset(cpu); > > Yeah, I get that tegra_cpu_car_ops is a pointer to an ops table. It seems > to me that what's happening above is that tegra_cpu_car_ops is getting > assigned a pointer to a pointer that's supposed to point to an instance of > struct tegra_cpu_car_ops (but it really points to NULL as far as I can tell). > In any case, dummy_car_ops never actually gets instantiated. > > I assume the intention is for dummy_car_ops to be an instance of > struct tegra_cpu_car_ops, but with all of its members zero'd. Oh right, I guess your comment was about the line after where you wrote it rather than the line before. So, you mean: static struct tegra_cpu_car_ops *dummy_car_ops; struct tegra_cpu_car_ops *tegra_cpu_car_ops = &dummy_car_ops; should be instead: static struct tegra_cpu_car_ops dummy_car_ops; struct tegra_cpu_car_ops *tegra_cpu_car_ops = &dummy_car_ops; Yes, you're right. -- 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
