[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110503085220.GL28001@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 09:52:20 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, johnlinn@...cast.net,
nicolas pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
grant likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
john linn <john.linn@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] ARM: Xilinx: Adding Xilinx board support
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 09:58:14AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 May 2011 01:01:18 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > It is preferable to use the same mapping, as it ensures that you're not
> > going to create incompatible aliases.
>
> Is aliasing a problem for MMIO mappings? I would think that you can
> ioremap registers anywhere and as often as you want because they are
> never cacheable.
Provided the type and sharability is identical then there is no problem.
I wasn't referring to multiple ioremap()s of the same region - that
should be fine as the same attributes will be used. If you mix ioremap()
and iotable_init() then you _could_ have problems if you don't use
MT_DEVICE in the iotable.
What I'm basically saying is that mixing the methods of creating these
mappings makes it much easier to get tripped up over these issues.
--
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