2020-07-24 07:45:01

by Peng Fan

Subject: [PATCH 02/10] remoteproc: imx_rproc: correct err message

It is using devm_ioremap, so not devm_ioremap_resource. Correct
the error message and print out sa/size.

Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <[email protected]>
---
drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
index 8957ed271d20..3b3904ebac75 100644
--- a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
+++ b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
@@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ static int imx_rproc_addr_init(struct imx_rproc *priv,
priv->mem[b].cpu_addr = devm_ioremap(&pdev->dev,
att->sa, att->size);
if (!priv->mem[b].cpu_addr) {
- dev_err(dev, "devm_ioremap_resource failed\n");
+ dev_err(dev, "devm_ioremap sa:0x%x size:0x%x failed\n", att->sa, att->size);
return -ENOMEM;
}
priv->mem[b].sys_addr = att->sa;
--
2.16.4

2020-08-11 19:57:23

by Mathieu Poirier

Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] remoteproc: imx_rproc: correct err message

On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 04:08:05PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> It is using devm_ioremap, so not devm_ioremap_resource. Correct
> the error message and print out sa/size.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> index 8957ed271d20..3b3904ebac75 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> @@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ static int imx_rproc_addr_init(struct imx_rproc *priv,
> priv->mem[b].cpu_addr = devm_ioremap(&pdev->dev,
> att->sa, att->size);
> if (!priv->mem[b].cpu_addr) {
> - dev_err(dev, "devm_ioremap_resource failed\n");
> + dev_err(dev, "devm_ioremap sa:0x%x size:0x%x failed\n", att->sa, att->size);

I'm good with fixing the devm_ioremap part but please remove the address and
size. Printing them provides little value because they come from the device
configuration area that is private to the driver. That way we don't expose
system information involuntarily.

With that:

Reviewed-by: Mathieu Poirier <[email protected]>

> return -ENOMEM;
> }
> priv->mem[b].sys_addr = att->sa;
> --
> 2.16.4
>