All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev list <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: fixup_bigphys_addr and ioremap64 question
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:09:21 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1162786162.28571.286.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1162784661.19697.4.camel@crusty.rchland.ibm.com>


> > So why do we have both ioremap and ioremap64 knowing that the former is
> > defined to take a phys_addr_t argument ?
> > 
> > Currently, we have both, with the only difference being that ioremap
> > calls ioremap64 but also passes the argument through a
> > fixup_bigphys_addr() function first.
> > 
> > It took me a while to find it ... it's not defined in generic code but
> > in platform code (ugh !). In fact, the only version of it we have in
> > arch/powerpc is in the 85xx support and does:
> 
> It's in arch/ppc/syslib/44x_common.c and it's used to trap the least
> significant 32 bits of an address and set the right ERPN for io space on
> 44x.  Something like that might be needed when 44x merges to
> arch/powerpc.

Well, my point is that since nowadays we have 64 bits struct resource
and 64 bits phys_addr_t passed to ioremap, do we still need that ? In
fact, in my upcoming patch merging io.h for 32 and 64 bits in
asm-powerpc, I've simply removed that hook and ioremap64 :-) I can add
it back still, but so far, I yet have to be convinced there is still a
good reason for that hook.

Ben.

  reply	other threads:[~2006-11-06  4:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-11-06  3:17 fixup_bigphys_addr and ioremap64 question Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-11-06  3:44 ` Josh Boyer
2006-11-06  4:09   ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2006-11-06  4:16     ` Josh Boyer
2006-11-06  4:46       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-11-06 16:45       ` Matt Porter
2006-11-06 19:27         ` Kumar Gala

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1162786162.28571.286.camel@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.