From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: julia.lawall@lip6.fr (Julia Lawall) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 13:49:26 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [PATCH 3/7] iommu/arm: replace devm_request_and_ioremap by devm_ioremap_resource In-Reply-To: <20130820113503.GC23007@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1376911241-27720-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> <1376911241-27720-4-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> <20130820113503.GC23007@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, 20 Aug 2013, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi Julia, > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 12:20:37PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > > From: Julia Lawall > > > > Use devm_ioremap_resource instead of devm_request_and_ioremap. > > > > This was partly done using the semantic patch > > scripts/coccinelle/api/devm_ioremap_resource.cocci > > > > The error-handling code on the call to platform_get_resource was removed > > manually, and the initialization of smmu->size was manually moved lower, to > > take advantage of the NULL test on res performed by devm_ioremap_resource. > > > > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall > > > > --- > > drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 11 +++-------- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c > > index ebd0a4c..dd91465 100644 > > --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c > > @@ -1761,15 +1761,10 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_dt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > smmu->dev = dev; > > > > res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0); > > - if (!res) { > > - dev_err(dev, "missing base address/size\n"); > > - return -ENODEV; > > - } > > - > > + smmu->base = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, res); > > + if (IS_ERR(smmu->base)) > > + return PTR_ERR(smmu->base); > > smmu->size = resource_size(res); > > - smmu->base = devm_request_and_ioremap(dev, res); > > - if (!smmu->base) > > - return -EADDRNOTAVAIL; > > This does mean we trade arguably more useful error codes for the catch-all > -EINVAL, but the code ends up looking neater so I can be swayed either way. > > Is this part of a series you're dealing with, or would you like me to take > this (I already sent my SMMU patches for 3.12)? Please take it onwards. Thanks. julia