From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com (Alexandre Belloni) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:09:16 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v4 05/13] pm: at91: move the copying the sram function to the sram initializationi phase In-Reply-To: <20150129112800.GV26493@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1422409172-24178-1-git-send-email-wenyou.yang@atmel.com> <1422409396-24394-1-git-send-email-wenyou.yang@atmel.com> <20150129112800.GV26493@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20150129150916.GC4164@piout.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752628AbbA2PJT (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2015 10:09:19 -0500 Received: from down.free-electrons.com ([37.187.137.238]:33569 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750840AbbA2PJS (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2015 10:09:18 -0500 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:09:16 +0100 From: Alexandre Belloni To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Wenyou Yang , nicolas.ferre@atmel.com, 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 Message-ID: <20150129150916.GC4164@piout.net> References: <1422409172-24178-1-git-send-email-wenyou.yang@atmel.com> <1422409396-24394-1-git-send-email-wenyou.yang@atmel.com> <20150129112800.GV26493@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150129112800.GV26493@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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