From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sshtylyov@mvista.com (Sergei Shtylyov) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 18:42:49 +0400 Subject: [PATCH v6 2/2] ARM: davinci: Remoteproc platform device creation data/code In-Reply-To: <1359168322-17733-3-git-send-email-rtivy@ti.com> References: <1359168322-17733-1-git-send-email-rtivy@ti.com> <1359168322-17733-3-git-send-email-rtivy@ti.com> Message-ID: <5103EB69.5070101@mvista.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello. On 26-01-2013 6:45, Robert Tivy wrote: > Added a new remoteproc platform device for DA8XX. Contains CMA-based > reservation of physical memory block. A new kernel command-line > parameter has been added to allow boot-time specification of the > physical memory block. No signoff again. > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/devices-da8xx.c b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/devices-da8xx.c > index fb2f51b..a455e5c 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/devices-da8xx.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/devices-da8xx.c [...] > @@ -706,6 +706,96 @@ int __init da850_register_mmcsd1(struct davinci_mmc_config *config) > } > #endif > > +static struct resource da8xx_rproc_resources[] = { > + { /* DSP boot address */ > + .start = DA8XX_SYSCFG0_BASE + DA8XX_HOST1CFG_REG, > + .end = DA8XX_SYSCFG0_BASE + DA8XX_HOST1CFG_REG + 3, > + .flags = IORESOURCE_MEM, > + }, > + { /* DSP interrupt registers */ > + .start = DA8XX_SYSCFG0_BASE + DA8XX_CHIPSIG_REG, > + .end = DA8XX_SYSCFG0_BASE + DA8XX_CHIPSIG_REG + 7, > + .flags = IORESOURCE_MEM, Does it really make sense to pass these as 2 resources -- they have the same base address? > +int __init da8xx_register_rproc(void) > +{ > + int ret; > + > + ret = platform_device_register(&da8xx_dsp); > + if (ret) { > + pr_err("%s: platform_device_register: %d\n", __func__, ret); Better message would be "can't register DSP device". > + Empty line hardly needed here. > + return ret; Not needed here, just move it outside the {} to replace 'return 0'. > + } > + > + return 0; > +}; > + WBR, Sergei