Re: [PATCH 3/4] driver/memmap: fix generic_memmap_rw and generic_memmap_ro

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>]

On 08:12 Thu 10 Feb     , Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 04:31:59AM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > we check before the RW access for generic_memmap_ro instead of
> > generic_memmap_rw
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/base/driver.c |    5 +++--
> >  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/driver.c b/drivers/base/driver.c
> > index ff92e44..bd7464e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/driver.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/driver.c
> > @@ -223,8 +223,6 @@ int generic_memmap_ro(struct cdev *cdev, void **map, int flags)
> >  	if (!cdev->dev)
> >  		return -EINVAL;
> >  
> > -	if (flags & PROT_WRITE)
> > -		return -EACCES;
> >  	*map = (void *)cdev->dev->map_base;
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> > @@ -234,6 +232,9 @@ int generic_memmap_rw(struct cdev *cdev, void **map, int flags)
> >  	if (!cdev->dev)
> >  		return -EINVAL;
> >  
> > +	if (flags & PROT_WRITE)
> > +		return -EACCES;
> > +
> 
> So instead of allowing write access in the read/write function we now
> allow it in the readonly function? I'm afraid I don't understand this.
PROT_WRITE means ro no?

Best Regards,
J.

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox