[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100719184002.GA21608@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 19:40:02 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Michael Bohan <mbohan@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Tim HRM <zt.tmzt@...il.com>,
Zach Pfeffer <zpfeffer@...eaurora.org>,
FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
dwalker@...eaurora.org, mel@....ul.ie,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, andi@...stfloor.org,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3 v3] mm: iommu: An API to unify IOMMU, CPU and device
memory management
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:55:15AM -0700, Michael Bohan wrote:
>
> On 7/16/2010 12:58 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
>> As the patch has been out for RFC since early April on the linux-arm-kernel
>> mailing list (Subject: [RFC] Prohibit ioremap() on kernel managed RAM),
>> and no comments have come back from Qualcomm folk.
>
> Would it be unreasonable to allow a map request to succeed if the
> requested attributes matched that of the preexisting mapping?
What would be the point of creating such a mapping?
--
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