Hi Hans, On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Hans de Goede <[email protected]> wrote: > Update simplefb to support the new preferred location for simplefb dt nodes > under /chosen. > > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/video/fbdev/simplefb.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/video/fbdev/simplefb.c b/drivers/video/fbdev/simplefb.c > index cd96edd..be7d288 100644 > --- a/drivers/video/fbdev/simplefb.c > +++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/simplefb.c > @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ > #include <linux/platform_data/simplefb.h> > #include <linux/platform_device.h> > #include <linux/clk-provider.h> > +#include <linux/of_platform.h> > > static struct fb_fix_screeninfo simplefb_fix = { > .id = "simple", > @@ -385,7 +386,37 @@ static struct platform_driver simplefb_driver = { > .probe = simplefb_probe, > .remove = simplefb_remove, > }; > -module_platform_driver(simplefb_driver); > + > +static int __init simplefb_init(void) > +{ > + int i, ret; > + char name[16]; > + struct device_node *np; > + > + ret = platform_driver_register(&simplefb_driver); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + for (i = 0; ; i++) { > + snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "framebuffer%d", i);
This smells like an infinite loop: we can be pretty sure that no hardware will ever exist with more than 9999 (I think?) framebuffers, however if that ever happens this'll loop until it runs out of RAM. Maybe add a suitably high limit to the for loop? Thanks, -- Julian Calaby Email: [email protected] Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "linux-sunxi" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
