[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1314880125.8038.39.camel@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 13:28:45 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] EFI: Do not use __pa() to get the physical address of
an ioremapped memory range
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 16:14 +0800, Zhang Rui wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 14:55 +0800, Zhang, Rui wrote:
> > From: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
> > Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:59:01 +0800
> > Subject: Do not use __pa() to get the physical address of an ioremapped memory range.
> >
> > set_memory_uc uses __pa() to translate the virtual address to the physical address.
> > This breaks a EFI_MEMORY_MAPPED_IO memory region in my case as it was ioremapped first.
> >
> oops, wrong patch was attached.
>
> here is the correct patch.
>
> From: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:59:01 +0800
> Subject: Do not use __pa() to get the physical address of an ioremapped memory range.
>
> set_memory_uc uses __pa() to translate the virtual address to the physical address.
> This breaks a EFI_MEMORY_MAPPED_IO memory region in my case as it was ioremapped first.
Hmm.. does anyone know why we ioremap_cache() the memory on
CONFIG_X86_32 instead of ioremap_nocache()? In the case of
EFI_MEMORY_MAPPED_IO the memory really needs to be uncached. Then if
we've ioremap'd the memory we should skip set_memory_uc() altogether,
no?
--
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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