linux-kernel - Re: of_iomap() matched with plan iounmap()

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:34:47 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	davidb@...eaurora.org
Cc:	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: of_iomap() matched with plan iounmap()

From: David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:02:26 -0700

> The SPARC target contains of_ioremap() and of_iounmap(), which various
> drivers use (generally inside of CONFIG_SBUS).
> 
> include/linux/of_address.h contains a definition for of_iomap(), but
> not corresponding unmap call.  Code using this calls the regular
> iounmap().
> 
> Is it safe to assume that of_iomap() will always be based on ioremap()
> and therefore it is safe to use iounmap(), or would it be better to
> define another name for drivers to use as the inverse of of_iomap().
> I'm not sure what to call it, since of_iounmap() is already taken by
> SPARC.

It's better to define a matching of_iounmap() interface, even if for
now it is exactly iounmap()
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/