About devm_platform_ioremap_resource [Was: Re: [PATCH 01/32] pwm: sun4i: convert to devm_platform_ioremap_resource]

Uwe Kleine-König u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de
Fri Nov 13 04:35:29 EST 2020


On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 10:12:46AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 8:04 AM Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > [Added lkml and the people involved in commit 7945f929f1a7
> > ("drivers: provide devm_platform_ioremap_resource()") to Cc:. For the
> > new readers: This is about patches making use of
> > devm_platform_ioremap_resource() instead of open coding it. Full context
> > at https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201112190649.GA908613@ulmo]
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 10:14:29PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 08:06:49PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > I also think that it's overly narrow is scope, so you can't actually
> > > > "blindly" use this helper and I've seen quite a few cases where this was
> > > > unknowingly used for cases where it shouldn't have been used and then
> > > > broke things (because some drivers must not do the request_mem_region()
> > > > for example).
> > >
> > > You have a link to such an accident?
> >
> > I got a hint in private here: https://lore.kernel.org/r/1555670144-24220-1-git-send-email-aisheng.dong@nxp.com
> >
> > devm_platform_ioremap_resource() is platform_get_resource() +
> > devm_ioremap_resource() and here it was used to replace
> > platform_get_resource() + devm_ioremap().
> >
> > IMHO the unlucky thing in this situation is that devm_ioremap_resource()
> > and devm_ioremap() are different by more than just how they get the area
> > to remap. (i.e. devm_ioremap_resource() also does
> > devm_request_mem_region().)
> >
> > So the problem is not the added wrapper, but unclear semantics in the
> > functions it uses. In my eyes devm_ioremap() and
> > devm_platform_ioremap_resource() should better be named
> > devm_request_ioremap() and devm_platform_request_ioremap_resource()
> > respectively. Is it worth to rename these for clearity?
> 
> But devm_ioremap() doesn't request the region. Did you mean
> devm_ioremap_resource() should become devm_request_ioremap_resource()?

Yes indeed. The last paragraph should be:

So the problem is not the added wrapper, but unclear semantics in the
functions it uses. In my eyes devm_ioremap_resource() and
devm_platform_ioremap_resource() should better be named
devm_request_ioremap_resource() and
devm_platform_request_ioremap_resource().

(Note that I created a patch series that implements this suggestion, but
you were not on Cc: as I extensively trimmed the recipents assuming most
people are not interested. See https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201113085327.125041-1-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de)

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-riscv/attachments/20201113/d0a83de2/attachment.sig>


More information about the linux-riscv mailing list