[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120917212506.GB11762@atomide.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:25:07 -0700
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/24] ARM: OMAP: use __iomem pointers for MMIO
* Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com> [120916 13:39]:
> * Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> [120915 13:15]:
> > On Saturday 15 September 2012, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > With my patches, this is now all omap1 specific and
> > > moved to arch/arm/mach-omap1/include/mach/hardware.h.
> > > It's probably easiest to just update this patch on
> > > top of the hardware.h changes I've done.
> >
> > Yes, sounds good. Do you want to send a patch for that
> > and let me drop this one then?
>
> Yes I can pick this one and update it against one of my
> branches to avoid merge conflicts.
This applies against mach-omap1/include/mach/hardware.h
with some fuzz so no issues there.
But I think we should not apply it as these are physical
addresses, not virtual addresses for omap1.
We have IOMEM already in use for omap_read/write because of:
#define OMAP1_IO_ADDRESS(pa) IOMEM((pa) - OMAP1_IO_OFFSET)
I think the right solution is to eventually get rid of
omap_read/write for omap1 also and replace them with ioremap
+ readl/writel.
Or am I missing something?
Regards,
Tony
--
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