Re: [PATCH 2/2] bcma: use separated function to initialize bus on SoC

["John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>]

On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:04:47PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> On 4 September 2014 19:38, John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 11:11:07PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> >> This is required to split SoC bus init into two phases. The later one
> >> (which includes scanning) should be called when kalloc is available.
> >>
> >> Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >> John: please note this patch touches arch/mips/bcm47xx/setup.c
> >>
> >> This patches is a first step of simplifying MIPS booting process on
> >> Broadcom SoCs. My research described in:
> >> > Booting bcm47xx (bcma & stuff), sharing code with bcm53xx
> >> e-mail thread explained how we could get rid of all these early scanning
> >> tricks. The main idea is to postpone bus initialization a bit and use
> >> all standard calls then. So far we were doing it so early we had to
> >> avoid kalloc.
> >> ---
> >>  arch/mips/bcm47xx/setup.c     |  4 ++++
> >>  drivers/bcma/host_soc.c       | 11 +++++++++--
> >>  include/linux/bcma/bcma_soc.h |  1 +
> >>  3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/mips/bcm47xx/setup.c b/arch/mips/bcm47xx/setup.c
> >> index 2b63e7e..fff6ed4 100644
> >> --- a/arch/mips/bcm47xx/setup.c
> >> +++ b/arch/mips/bcm47xx/setup.c
> >> @@ -202,6 +202,10 @@ static void __init bcm47xx_register_bcma(void)
> >>
> >>       err = bcma_host_soc_register(&bcm47xx_bus.bcma);
> >>       if (err)
> >> +             panic("Failed to register BCMA bus (err %d)", err);
> >> +
> >> +     err = bcma_host_soc_init(&bcm47xx_bus.bcma);
> >> +     if (err)
> >>               panic("Failed to initialize BCMA bus (err %d)", err);
> >>
> >>       bcm47xx_fill_bcma_boardinfo(&bcm47xx_bus.bcma.bus.boardinfo, NULL);
> >
> > This hunk looks wrong.  Is it missing indentation?  Or should a line
> > be removed at the top?
> 
> I've just downloaded & applied this patchset on top of wireless-next
> successfully... Did you merge something extra from net-next maybe?

I'm looking at the patch itself.  But I think I misread it...

-- 
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@tuxdriver.com			might be all we have.  Be ready.