linux-kernel - of_iomap() matched with plan iounmap()

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110818170226.GA16721@huya.qualcomm.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:02:26 -0700
From:	David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>
To:	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: of_iomap() matched with plan iounmap()

The SPARC target contains of_ioremap() and of_iounmap(), which various
drivers use (generally inside of CONFIG_SBUS).

include/linux/of_address.h contains a definition for of_iomap(), but
not corresponding unmap call.  Code using this calls the regular
iounmap().

Is it safe to assume that of_iomap() will always be based on ioremap()
and therefore it is safe to use iounmap(), or would it be better to
define another name for drivers to use as the inverse of of_iomap().
I'm not sure what to call it, since of_iounmap() is already taken by
SPARC.

Thanks,
David

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
--
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/