About devm_platform_ioremap_resource [Was: Re: [PATCH 01/32] pwm: sun4i: convert to devm_platform_ioremap_resource]
bgolaszewski at baylibre.com
Fri Nov 13 04:12:46 EST 2020
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 8:04 AM Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de> wrote:
> [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://email@example.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
> 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()?
More information about the Linux-rockchip