[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1190153775.6403.120.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:16:14 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...il.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Clarify pci_iomap() usage for MMIO-only devices
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 12:03 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >
> > Alright, here is the same patch inline with s/recommended/required/ language:
>
> Well, the thing is, I'm not at all sure that I agree with this.
>
> If you use ioport_map/unmap, then you really *should* access them with the
> proper iomem accessors (ioread/iowrite). The fact that it may happen to
> work (when using the default lib/iomap.c implementation, at least) on
> some architectures and with the current implementation still doesn't mean
> that you should necessarily use readb/writeb.
>
> After all, you cannot use "inb/outb" on it, even if would happen to be an
> IO address.
>
> So what is this usage that wants to use the bogus accessor? Why not fix
> that instead of adding documentation for something that is very arguably
> something we want to *avoid* having people do!
Agreed.
ioremap -> readb/writeb
ioport_map/pci_iomap -> ioread/iowrite
and nothing else should be allowed.
Cheers,
Ben.
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists