Andrew Morton wrote:
>> +static struct diu_hw dr = {
>> + .mode = MFB_MODE1,
>> + .reg_lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(old_style_spin_init),
>> +};
>
> I'm not clear on what's supposed to happen with __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(). I
> do know that its documentation is crap.
Yes, "__SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(old_style_spin_init)" is wrong. We'll fix it.
> static struct diu_hw dr = {
> .mode = MFB_MODE1,
> - .reg_lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(old_style_spin_init),
> + .reg_lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(diu_hw.reg_lock),
> };
Yes, this is better. Did you already make this change when you applied it to
your -mm repo?
> GFP_DMA implies GFP_ATOMIC, but it's appropriate for documentation purposes.
So does that mean that "GFP_DMA | GFP_KERNEL" is always wrong? If so, this
combination is used a lot in the kernel today.
>> + if (virt) {
>> + *phys = virt_to_phys(virt);
>> + pr_debug("virt %p, phys=%llx\n", virt, (uint64_t) *phys);
>> + memset(virt, 0, size);
>
> Could have used __GFP_ZERO, I guess.
I had completely forgotten about __GFP_ZERO. Thanks.
>> + virt = (void *) rh_alloc(&diu_ops.diu_rh_info, size, "DIU");
>
> hm, I'd have expected checkpatch to whine about the space after the cast
> there. Whatever.
I thought a space after a cast is the right thing to do?
> please take a look, and please use checkpatch on all future patches.
Sorry, we forgot to run it again after our second version of the patch.
>> +static void free_irq_local(int irq)
>> +{
>> + struct diu *hw = dr.diu_reg;
>> +
>> + /* Disable all LCDC interrupt */
>> + out_be32(&(hw->int_mask), 0x1f);
>> +
>> + free_irq(irq, 0);
>> +}
>
> and the free_irq() will go splat?
Sorry, but I don't understand what's wrong with this code.
We'll make the other changes you've suggested and repost.
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
