From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752373Ab0KGRQZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Nov 2010 12:16:25 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:46143 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751957Ab0KGRQW convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Nov 2010 12:16:22 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=OkEkP/mSONtsdkibofMFBMhkbB8EBz1GOVq1lykWs35ntz4jL1SSDi4Ol0LwS2jM/R Diu0Hpxaey16wGpGh6CTYbr/Fyb2JPVz3Fbf4Xg5y9IDk/7CIM7skyQ68GbNbpnFUaAt fjOHIt4H5C8xmDdJhUfKK3XY5nofUJ+BzTW9s= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20101107170005.GC1759@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1289147348-31969-1-git-send-email-alchark@gmail.com> <20101107170005.GC1759@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 20:16:21 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6 v2] ARM: Add basic architecture support for VIA/WonderMedia 85xx SoC's From: Alexey Charkov To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, vt8500-wm8505-linux-kernel@googlegroups.com, Eric Miao , =?UTF-8?Q?Uwe_Kleine=2DK=C3=B6nig?= , Albin Tonnerre , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 2010/11/7 Russell King - ARM Linux : > A couple of other points - sorry, should've been in the last mail. > > On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 07:28:52PM +0300, Alexey Charkov wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-vt8500/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-vt8500/Kconfig >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..e0c6268 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-vt8500/Kconfig >> @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@ >> +if ARCH_VT8500 >> + >> +config VTWM_VERSION_VT8500 >> +     bool >> +     default n > > n is the default anyway, so specifying this is redundant. > Great, I'll drop it then. >> +void __init bv07_init(void) >> +{ >> +#ifdef CONFIG_FB_VT8500 >> +     void __iomem *gpio_mux_reg = ioremap(wmt_current_regs->gpio >> +                                          + 0x200, 4); > > ioremap() is generally regarded as a function which can fail, and therefore > needs its return value checked.  There seems to be multiple instances of > this through this patch. > Is it OK to simply skip the code that uses the relevant pointer if ioremap fails (possibly issuing an error via printk)? The problem is that these are void functions, so I can't just return -ENODEV on failure.