[PATCH v2 3/3] ARM: OMAP4+: Remove static iotable mappings for SRAM

[Kevin Hilman]

Rajendra Nayak <rnayak at ti.com> writes:

> On Thursday 29 August 2013 10:50 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Rajendra Nayak <rnayak at ti.com> writes:
>> 
>>> In order to handle errata I688, a page of sram was reserved by doing a
>>> static iotable map. Now that we use gen_pool to manage sram, we can
>>> completely remove all of these static mappings and use gen_pool_alloc()
>>> to get the one page of sram space needed to implement errata I688.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar at ti.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak at ti.com>
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>>> @@ -71,6 +72,21 @@ void omap_bus_sync(void)
>>>  }
>>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(omap_bus_sync);
>>>  
>>> +static int __init omap4_sram_init(void)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct device_node *np;
>>> +	struct gen_pool *sram_pool;
>>> +
>>> +	np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "ti,omap4-mpu");
>>> +	if (!np)
>>> +		pr_warn("%s:Unable to allocate sram needed to handle errata I688\n",
>>> +			 __func__);
>>> +	sram_pool = of_get_named_gen_pool(np, "sram", 0);
>> 
>> I haven't actually tested this, but if there is no 'sram' property defined...
>>   
>>> +	sram_sync = (void *)gen_pool_alloc(sram_pool, PAGE_SIZE);
>> 
>> ... does this still behave properly?
>
> I guess not :(
> of_get_named_gen_pool() ends up returning NULL, but passing NULL to gen_pool_alloc()
> crashes. Will fix with the additional check for non-NULL sram_pool, thanks.

OK, that's what I suspected.  Thanks for checking/testing.

Kevin