[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101007192245.GC26435@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 20:22:45 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>
Cc: linux-main <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Arnd Hannemann <arnd@...dnet.de>,
Han Jonghun <jonghun79.han@...il.com>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, Hemant Pedanekar <hemantp@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: allow, but warn, when issuing ioremap() on RAM
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 12:44:22PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Many drivers are broken, and there's no alternative in sight. Such a big
> change should stay as a warning for now, and only later should it
> actually fail.
>
> The drivers are not doing something correct, we get it, but for now it's
> better to allow them to work (they do 99% of the time anyway) rather
> than to force everyone to revert this patch in their internal trees
> until there's a solution. A slightly broken functionality is better than
> no functionality at all.
>
> A warning lets people know that what they are doing is not right, and
> they should fix it.
So what are _you_ going to do to fix these drivers? Continue reverting
this patch? Or are you just going to ignore the issue entirely?
Unless people can come up with a plan to fix their drivers using ioremap
on system RAM thereby violating the architecture specification, I'm
_not_ going to apply this patch.
--
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