On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 21:02:44 +0000 "Ruhl, Michael J" <michael.j.ruhl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >--- a/include/linux/io-mapping.h~io-mapping-indicate-mapping-failure-fix
> >+++ a/include/linux/io-mapping.h
> >@@ -107,9 +107,12 @@ io_mapping_init_wc(struct io_mapping *io
> > resource_size_t base,
> > unsigned long size)
> > {
> >+ iomap->iomem = ioremap_wc(base, size);
> >+ if (!iomap->iomem)
> >+ return NULL;
> >+
>
> This does make more sense.
>
> I am confused by the two follow up emails I just got.
One was your original patch, the other is my suggested alteration.
> Shall I resubmit, or is this path (if !iomap->iomem) return NULL)
> now in the tree.
All is OK. If my alteration is acceptable (and, preferably, tested!)
then when the time comes, I'll fold it into the base patch, add a
note indicating this change and shall then send it to Linus.
