On 04/23/2012 05:53 AM, Hiroshi Doyu wrote:
From: Hiroshi DOYU hdoyu@nvidia.com
This code was based on: "arch/microblaze/kernel/prom_parse.c" "arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_parse.c"
"ibm," prefix could be supported with some modification.
That'd probably be a good idea. If it isn't supported, then this code can't be used as a replacement for the PPC and Microblaze code.
+int of_parse_dma_window(struct device_node *dn,
const char *propname, int index,unsigned long *busno,dma_addr_t *addr, size_t *size)+{
- const __be32 *dma_window, *end;
- int bytes, cur_index = 0;
- if (!dn || !propname || !addr || !size)
return -EINVAL;
Instead of erroring out if (!propname), perhaps:
if (!propname) propname = "dma-window";
so that only drivers using bindings before this common binding was defined actually need to write out the property name?
diff --git a/include/linux/of_address.h b/include/linux/of_address.h
...
+extern int of_parse_dma_window(struct device_node *dev,
const char *propname, int index,unsigned long *busno,dma_addr_t *phys, size_t *size);
This function has the same name as the PPC and Microblaze code it's based on. Is that going to cause compile and link errors due to duplicate symbol definitions?