Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:56:38 +0100 | From | Nicolas Ferre <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 09/19] ARM: at91: make sdram/ddr register base soc independent |
| |
On 02/22/2012 11:33 PM, Ryan Mallon : > On 22/02/12 20:39, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > >> From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> >> >> Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> >> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> >> --- > > <snip> > >> +void __init at91_ioremap_ramc(int id, u32 addr, u32 size) >> +{ >> + if (id > 1) { >> + pr_warn("%s: id > 2\n", __func__); >> + return; >> + } >> + at91_ramc_base[id] = ioremap(addr, size); >> + if (!at91_ramc_base[id]) >> + pr_warn("Impossible to ioremap ramc.%d 0x%x\n", id, addr); >> +} > > > If this fails then you will oops if you call either at91_ramc_read or > at91_ramc_write since they don't check if at91_ramc_base[id] is a valid > pointer. Either this function should panic, like the other at91_ioremap > functions, or the at91_ramc_read/write functions should check for a > valid pointer.
Yes, as you pointed out, it is done in a not-related following patch. I will bring the code here.
> Nitpick: The id check should probably also be BUG() or WARN() since it > indicates a bug in the core AT91 code. pr_warn is likely to missed and > not reported by users. Since the value is int, the check should be: > > if (id < 0 || id > 1) > > Obviously the chance of this error happening are slim, but if you are > going to check and warn for it, it should be done properly :-).
Yes, I agree and modify it at the very moment.
thanks, best regards, -- Nicolas Ferre
| |