[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <481503ED.8060107@garzik.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:53:33 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com, mingo@...e.hu,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [patch] x86, voyager: fix ioremap_nocache()
David Miller wrote:
> From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:39:24 -0400
>
>> I disagree with this semantics change. A number of code places _and
>> drivers_ GET IT RIGHT, and these are all broken now?
>
> [ Note, James's patch that you quoted is about mapping DMA
> memory, in dma_declare_coherent_memory(), rather than devices.
> But I know what you are trying to talk about Jeff. :-) ]
>
> Wrt. ioremap() semanics, it is important to realize that if
> the implementation of this on x86 has been giving non-cached
> I/O mappings out up until recently, you can expect that there
> are hundreds of drivers that might now be broken.
>
> That's the sad fact of the ubiquity of x86, and it doesn't matter how
> we defined the API is some document.
>
> Anyways, my point is that this angle should be strongly considered in
> any discussion about ioremap() behavior.
Understood.
I guess I am more annoyed that this stealth semantics change appears to
have broken everything that depends on pci_iomap(), including 90%+ of
all libata drivers, unless I am missing something.
That one piece of code (pci_iomap) was correct under the old semantics,
on x86 and elsewhere. It's tested and working nicely, and depended upon
by many drivers.
Jeff
--
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