lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jul]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 1/9] nvmem: Add a simple NVMEM framework for nvmem providers
On 07/20/2015 07:43 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/core.c b/drivers/nvmem/core.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..bde5528
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/nvmem/core.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,384 @@
>
> +
> +static int nvmem_add_cells(struct nvmem_device *nvmem,
> + const struct nvmem_config *cfg)
> +{
> + struct nvmem_cell **cells;
> + const struct nvmem_cell_info *info = cfg->cells;
> + int i, rval;
> +
> + cells = kzalloc(sizeof(*cells) * cfg->ncells, GFP_KERNEL);

kcalloc?

> + if (!cells)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < cfg->ncells; i++) {
> + cells[i] = kzalloc(sizeof(**cells), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!cells[i]) {
> + rval = -ENOMEM;
> + goto err;
> + }
> +
> + rval = nvmem_cell_info_to_nvmem_cell(nvmem, &info[i], cells[i]);
> + if (IS_ERR_VALUE(rval)) {
> + kfree(cells[i]);
> + goto err;
> + }
> +
> + nvmem_cell_add(cells[i]);
> + }
> +
> + nvmem->ncells = cfg->ncells;
> + /* remove tmp array */
> + kfree(cells);
> +
> + return 0;
> +err:
> + while (--i)
> + nvmem_cell_drop(cells[i]);
> +
> + return rval;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * nvmem_register() - Register a nvmem device for given nvmem_config.
> + * Also creates an binary entry in /sys/bus/nvmem/devices/dev-name/nvmem
> + *
> + * @config: nvmem device configuration with which nvmem device is created.
> + *
> + * Return: Will be an ERR_PTR() on error or a valid pointer to nvmem_device
> + * on success.
> + */
> +

Why the newline?

> +struct nvmem_device *nvmem_register(const struct nvmem_config *config)
> +{
> + struct nvmem_device *nvmem;
> + struct device_node *np;
> + struct regmap *rm;
> + int rval;
> +
> + if (!config->dev)
> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> +
> + rm = dev_get_regmap(config->dev, NULL);
> + if (!rm) {
> + dev_err(config->dev, "Regmap not found\n");
> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> + }
> +
> + nvmem = kzalloc(sizeof(*nvmem), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!nvmem)
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +
> + nvmem->id = ida_simple_get(&nvmem_ida, 0, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (nvmem->id < 0) {
> + kfree(nvmem);
> + return ERR_PTR(nvmem->id);

Oops, we already freed nvmem.

> + }
> +
> + nvmem->regmap = rm;
> + nvmem->owner = config->owner;
> + nvmem->stride = regmap_get_reg_stride(rm);
> + nvmem->word_size = regmap_get_val_bytes(rm);
> + nvmem->size = regmap_get_max_register(rm) + nvmem->stride;
> + nvmem->dev.type = &nvmem_provider_type;
> + nvmem->dev.bus = &nvmem_bus_type;
> + nvmem->dev.parent = config->dev;
> + np = config->dev->of_node;
> + nvmem->dev.of_node = np;
> + dev_set_name(&nvmem->dev, "%s%d",
> + config->name ? : "nvmem", config->id);
> +
> + nvmem->read_only = np ? of_property_read_bool(np, "read-only") : 0;

of_property_read_bool(NULL, ..) "does the right thing" and returns false
already.

> +
> + nvmem->read_only |= config->read_only;
> +
> + device_initialize(&nvmem->dev);
> +
> + dev_dbg(&nvmem->dev, "Registering nvmem device %s\n", config->name);
> +
> + rval = device_add(&nvmem->dev);
> + if (rval) {
> + ida_simple_remove(&nvmem_ida, nvmem->id);
> + kfree(nvmem);
> + return ERR_PTR(rval);
> + }
> +
> + if (device_create_bin_file(&nvmem->dev,
> + nvmem->read_only ? &bin_attr_ro_nvmem :
> + &bin_attr_rw_nvmem))
> + dev_warn(&nvmem->dev, "Failed to create sysfs binary file\n");

Why can't we have device_add() add the binary file attribute too?

> +
> + if (config->cells)
> + nvmem_add_cells(nvmem, config);
> +
> + return nvmem;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nvmem_register);
> +
> +/**
> + * nvmem_unregister() - Unregister previously registered nvmem device
> + *
> + * @nvmem: Pointer to previously registered nvmem device.
> + *
> + * Return: Will be an negative on error or a zero on success.
> + */
> +int nvmem_unregister(struct nvmem_device *nvmem)
> +{
> + mutex_lock(&nvmem_mutex);
> + if (nvmem->users) {
> + mutex_unlock(&nvmem_mutex);
> + return -EBUSY;
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(&nvmem_mutex);

This lock doesn't seem to be doing anything in this patch? Perhaps it
should be added in the second patch where consumers start making it useful?

--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-07-20 23:21    [W:0.192 / U:1.784 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site