From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Cousson, Benoit" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm: mach-omap2: devices: fix omap3_l3_init() return value Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:19:43 +0100 Message-ID: <4D81C41F.8090702@ti.com> References: <1300295763-497-1-git-send-email-aaro.koskinen@nokia.com> <324bffcaf53be55bd6f392af3f86fa10@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from arroyo.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.40]:54558 "EHLO arroyo.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751482Ab1CQITu (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Mar 2011 04:19:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <324bffcaf53be55bd6f392af3f86fa10@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: "Shilimkar, Santosh" Cc: Aaro Koskinen , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "tony@atomide.com" Hi Santosh, On 3/17/2011 6:52 AM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org [mailto:linux- >> arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org] On Behalf Of Aaro Koskinen >> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 10:46 PM >> To: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm- >> kernel@lists.infradead.org; tony@atomide.com >> Cc: Aaro Koskinen >> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] arm: mach-omap2: devices: fix omap3_l3_init() >> return value >> >> Fix the return value for the successful case. >> >> Signed-off-by: Aaro Koskinen >> --- >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c | 2 +- >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c b/arch/arm/mach- >> omap2/devices.c >> index 0d2d6a9..d478f53 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c >> @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ static int __init omap3_l3_init(void) >> >> WARN(IS_ERR(od), "could not build omap_device for %s\n", >> oh_name); >> >> - return PTR_ERR(od); >> + return IS_ERR(od) ? PTR_ERR(od) : 0; >> } >> postcore_initcall(omap3_l3_init); Maybe we should initialize that before, because in theory the timer12 secure violation should have been captured easily with this code? Regards, Benoit From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: b-cousson@ti.com (Cousson, Benoit) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:19:43 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] arm: mach-omap2: devices: fix omap3_l3_init() return value In-Reply-To: <324bffcaf53be55bd6f392af3f86fa10@mail.gmail.com> References: <1300295763-497-1-git-send-email-aaro.koskinen@nokia.com> <324bffcaf53be55bd6f392af3f86fa10@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4D81C41F.8090702@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Santosh, On 3/17/2011 6:52 AM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: linux-arm-kernel-bounces at lists.infradead.org [mailto:linux- >> arm-kernel-bounces at lists.infradead.org] On Behalf Of Aaro Koskinen >> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 10:46 PM >> To: linux-omap at vger.kernel.org; linux-arm- >> kernel at lists.infradead.org; tony at atomide.com >> Cc: Aaro Koskinen >> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] arm: mach-omap2: devices: fix omap3_l3_init() >> return value >> >> Fix the return value for the successful case. >> >> Signed-off-by: Aaro Koskinen >> --- >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c | 2 +- >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c b/arch/arm/mach- >> omap2/devices.c >> index 0d2d6a9..d478f53 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c >> @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ static int __init omap3_l3_init(void) >> >> WARN(IS_ERR(od), "could not build omap_device for %s\n", >> oh_name); >> >> - return PTR_ERR(od); >> + return IS_ERR(od) ? PTR_ERR(od) : 0; >> } >> postcore_initcall(omap3_l3_init); Maybe we should initialize that before, because in theory the timer12 secure violation should have been captured easily with this code? Regards, Benoit