Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:09:16 +0100 | From | Alexandre Belloni <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 05/13] pm: at91: move the copying the sram function to the sram initializationi phase |
| |
Hi,
On 29/01/2015 at 11:28:00 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote : > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 09:43:16AM +0800, Wenyou Yang wrote: > > -#ifdef CONFIG_AT91_SLOW_CLOCK > > - /* copy slow_clock handler to SRAM, and call it */ > > - memcpy(slow_clock, at91_slow_clock, at91_slow_clock_sz); > > -#endif > > slow_clock(at91_pmc_base, at91_ramc_base[0], > > at91_ramc_base[1], > > at91_pm_data.memctrl); > > @@ -272,6 +268,9 @@ static void __init at91_pm_sram_init(void) > > sram_pbase = gen_pool_virt_to_phys(sram_pool, sram_base); > > slow_clock = __arm_ioremap_exec(sram_pbase, at91_slow_clock_sz, false); > > > > + /* Copy the slow_clock handler to SRAM */ > > + memcpy(slow_clock, at91_slow_clock, at91_slow_clock_sz); > > + > > Why is this code not using the fncpy() support for copying functions.
Indeed, this was done in the original version of the patch that I acked.
> Why is it not checking the return code from __arm_ioremap_exec() or > gen_pool_virt_to_phys() for failure?
gen_pool_virt_to_phys() will not fail as the chunk is allocated just before so it will necessarily be found in the list.
We need to reintroduce a check for slow_clock != NULL before fncpy() since it is moved out of its original if block.
-- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
| |