>-----Original Message----- >From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]> >Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 5:24 PM >To: Ruhl, Michael J <[email protected]> >Cc: [email protected]; Mike Rapoport <[email protected]>; >Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>; Chris Wilson ><[email protected]>; [email protected] >Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] io-mapping: Indicate mapping failure > >On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 21:02:44 +0000 "Ruhl, Michael J" ><[email protected]> wrote: > >> >--- a/include/linux/io-mapping.h~io-mapping-indicate-mapping-failure-fix >> >+++ a/include/linux/io-mapping.h >> >@@ -107,9 +107,12 @@ io_mapping_init_wc(struct io_mapping *io >> > resource_size_t base, >> > unsigned long size) >> > { >> >+ iomap->iomem = ioremap_wc(base, size); >> >+ if (!iomap->iomem) >> >+ return NULL; >> >+ >> >> This does make more sense. >> >> I am confused by the two follow up emails I just got. > >One was your original patch, the other is my suggested alteration. > >> Shall I resubmit, or is this path (if !iomap->iomem) return NULL) >> now in the tree. > >All is OK. If my alteration is acceptable (and, preferably, tested!) >then when the time comes, I'll fold it into the base patch, add a >note indicating this change and shall then send it to Linus.
I am good with the change and have tested it. Instead of the system crashing I get: i915 0000:01:00.0: [drm] *ERROR* Failed to setup region(-5) type=1 i915 0000:01:00.0: Device initialization failed (-5) i915: probe of 0000:01:00.0 failed with error -5 Which is the expected error. If you would like this for the updated patch: Tested-By: Michael J. Ruhl <[email protected]> Thanks! Mike _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
