Messages in this thread | | | From | Masahiro Yamada <> | Date | Sat, 21 Oct 2017 01:18:14 +0900 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/12] nvmem: imx-iim: use stack for nvmem_config instead of malloc'ing it |
| |
2017-10-20 23:47 GMT+09:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 11:26:16PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >> 2017-10-20 22:54 GMT+09:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>: >> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:47:16PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >> >> Hi Greg, >> >> >> >> 2017-10-20 22:32 GMT+09:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>: >> >> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 03:26:30PM +0200, srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org wrote: >> >> >> From: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> >> >> >> >> >> >> nvmem_register() copies all the members of nvmem_config to >> >> >> nvmem_device. So, nvmem_config is one-time use data during >> >> >> probing. There is no point to keep it until the driver detach. >> >> >> Using stack should be no problem because nvmem_config is pretty >> >> >> small. >> >> >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> >> >> >> --- >> >> >> drivers/nvmem/imx-iim.c | 27 ++++++++++++--------------- >> >> >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) >> >> >> >> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/imx-iim.c b/drivers/nvmem/imx-iim.c >> >> >> index 52ff65e0673f..a5992602709a 100644 >> >> >> --- a/drivers/nvmem/imx-iim.c >> >> >> +++ b/drivers/nvmem/imx-iim.c >> >> >> @@ -34,7 +34,6 @@ struct imx_iim_drvdata { >> >> >> struct iim_priv { >> >> >> void __iomem *base; >> >> >> struct clk *clk; >> >> >> - struct nvmem_config nvmem; >> >> >> }; >> >> >> >> >> >> static int imx_iim_read(void *context, unsigned int offset, >> >> >> @@ -108,7 +107,7 @@ static int imx_iim_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> >> >> struct resource *res; >> >> >> struct iim_priv *iim; >> >> >> struct nvmem_device *nvmem; >> >> >> - struct nvmem_config *cfg; >> >> >> + struct nvmem_config cfg = {}; >> >> > >> >> > You do realize you are now not zeroing out this structure, and have to >> >> > explicitly initialize all of the fields, right? >> >> >> >> Why? >> >> >> >> I am surely zeroing out the structure. >> >> >> >> Did you miss "= {};" in my code? >> > >> > Are you sure that does zero it out? I know we have had issues with this >> > in the past... >> >> Do you have a reference for that? >> >> All members that are not specified in the initializer >> are set to 0 (or NULL). >> >> "git show c7836d1593b87cb813c58cf64e08b052ebbe2a78" >> and do you agree that this is correct? > > Ugh, you are right, that's what I get for reviewing 250+ patches at a > time, my fault, sorry for the noise. > > Can you resend these? > > thanks, > > greg k-h
For what?
Srinivas said he based the series on char-misc, and this is the first patch of the series.
It should be applied cleanly to char-misc. (and 05/12 too, if you obey the patch order)
If you are in trouble, please let me know the base commit it should be rebased on.
-- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
| |