[...]
> > static int __init omap16xx_gpio_init(void)
> > {
> > int i;
> > + void __iomem *base;
> > + struct resource *res;
> > + struct platform_device *pdev;
> > + struct omap_gpio_platform_data *pdata;
> >
> > if (!cpu_is_omap16xx())
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(omap16xx_gpio_dev); i++)
> > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(omap16xx_gpio_dev); i++) {
> > + pdev = omap16xx_gpio_dev[i];
> > + pdata = pdev->dev.platform_data;
> > +
> > + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
> > + if (unlikely(!res)) {
> > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Invalid mem resource.\n");
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > + }
> > +
> > + base = ioremap(res->start, resource_size(res));
> > + if (unlikely(!base)) {
> > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "ioremap failed.\n");
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > + }
>
> The value of base isn't saved anywhere, and the memory is not
> unmapped, looks like a virtual memory leak. If the purpose of the
> ioremap is to perform the single write below then iounmap when done?
This is one time write only.
I will iounmap(base) after use. Thanks.
> The previous code to perform that write used a
> struct gpio_bank *bank->base ioremapped by omap_gpio_probe, but
> apparently omap16xx_gpio_init isn't called in that path.
Right.
>
> > +
> > + __raw_writel(0x0014, base + OMAP1610_GPIO_SYSCONFIG);
>
> Suggest a symbol for the 0x14 value, or add a comment describing what
> this does. (I realize the existing code has many naked constants.)
Sure.
--
Tarun
>
>
>
> Todd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
