[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTikyunbd2ACuS0mzR7NV0sfWFRdGRaxna9ZPM-Nt@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 08:55:19 +0200
From: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>, andi@...stfloor.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] archs: add ioremap_change_write_prot
2010/10/26 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>:
>
> Why inventing a new interface if we have one already ?
>
> set_memory_* which has a few more variants than ro/rw
>
> Also this is not related to ioremap, these are functions which works on
> almost anything when there are other restrictions in place.
>
> So implementing set_memory_ro(), set_memory_rw() for those archs which
> you need it for makes more sense than creating a misnomed and
> misplaced wrapper.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
Andi and Thomas, thanks for your response. I was trying to use an
homogeneous interface, I see that only x86 has got set_memory_*, but
ok I can use these ones. About the name I used, I was trying to use a
way to change the protection after an ioremap, so for x86 means a call
to these functions, but other archs could mean other checks.
However it needs to adds a define or something similar to know if the
archs implements or not this interface. Suggestions about this point?
Thanks.
Marco
--
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