lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jan]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH v4 05/13] pm: at91: move the copying the sram function to the sram initializationi phase
Date
Hi  Alexandre,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexandre Belloni [mailto:alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 11:09 PM
> To: Russell King - ARM Linux
> Cc: Yang, Wenyou; Ferre, Nicolas; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org; sylvain.rochet@finsecur.com; peda@axentia.se;
> sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com; linux@maxim.org.za
> 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.
Yes, in the original version used the fncpy(), but it works not well for some SoCs.
Sorry for that, I forget to record it on the change log.

>
> > 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

Best Regards,
Wenyou yang


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-01-30 08:21    [W:0.088 / U:5.280 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site