On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:57:43PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> On 11:44 Wed 10 Oct , Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > The check is wrong since it would have to check whether the
> > new iomem region overlaps with an existing region. Checking
> > for the base address only is not enough.
> > Currently this is not possible because every device conflicts
> > with the top iomem region which covers the whole address space.
> >
> > This at least fixes the regression that devices whose memory region
> > begins at 0x0 can no longer be succesfully registered.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/base/platform.c | 12 ------------
> > 1 file changed, 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/platform.c b/drivers/base/platform.c
> > index 13b4620..ea4e37b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/platform.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/platform.c
> > @@ -66,18 +66,6 @@ int platform_device_register(struct device_d *new_device)
> > {
> > new_device->bus = &platform_bus;
> >
> > - if (new_device->resource) {
> > - struct device_d *dev;
> > -
> > - bus_for_each_device(new_device->bus, dev) {
> > - if (!dev->resource)
> > - continue;
> > - if (dev->resource->start == new_device->resource->start) {
> > - return -EBUSY;
> > - }
> > - }
> > - }
> > -
> IIRC this break the dt probe no?
Why should it?
>
> this break the arm and st hw atleast
What breaks it? The check for conflicts or the removal of the check?
What breaks? I know no board which registers conflicting resources, so
the check never triggers.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
