Hi Jean-Jacques, Thanks for this new series, I have one little comment:
On 12/02/2014 11:06, Jean-Jacques Hiblot wrote: > Signed-off-by: Jean-Jacques Hiblot <[email protected]> > --- > arch/arm/mach-at91/setup.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/setup.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/setup.c > index f7ca97b..b8d0b66 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/setup.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/setup.c > @@ -487,6 +487,28 @@ end: > of_node_put(np); > } > > +static struct of_device_id matrix_ids[] = { > + { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9261-bus-matrix", }, > + { /*sentinel*/ } > +}; > + > +static void at91_dt_matrix(void) > +{ > + struct device_node *np; > + > + np = of_find_matching_node(NULL, matrix_ids); > + if (!np) { > + pr_debug("AT91: unable to find compatible bus matrix controller > node in dtb\n"); I think that a panic here should be more consistent with the next check. Indeed if it fails here then at91_matrix_base will be uninitialized too, and it will make the kernel crash when at91_matrix_base will be accessed. Thanks, Gregory > + return; > + } > + > + at91_matrix_base = of_iomap(np, 0); > + if (!at91_matrix_base) > + panic("Impossible to ioremap at91_matrix_base\n"); > + > + of_node_put(np); > +} > + > void __init at91rm9200_dt_initialize(void) > { > at91_dt_ramc(); > @@ -506,6 +528,7 @@ void __init at91_dt_initialize(void) > at91_dt_rstc(); > at91_dt_ramc(); > at91_dt_shdwc(); > + at91_dt_matrix(); > > /* Init clock subsystem */ > at91_dt_clock_init(); > -- Gregory Clement, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
