From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: davidb@codeaurora.org (David Brown) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 10:25:43 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] ARM: runtime patching of __virt_to_phys() and __phys_to_virt() In-Reply-To: <20110104180620.GC24935@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (Russell King's message of "Tue, 4 Jan 2011 18:06:20 +0000") References: <1294129208-15201-1-git-send-email-nico@fluxnic.net> <1294129208-15201-2-git-send-email-nico@fluxnic.net> <20110104084517.GA9791@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110104165347.GA24935@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110104180620.GC24935@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <8yahbdoh6fs.fsf@huya.qualcomm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Jan 04 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 12:50:28PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. At present, there is one > platform which defines its own complex v:p mapping and that is Realview, > but only when sparsemem is enabled. As already mentioned, MSM is the > only other platform which can't use this method. So that's a simple > dependency line against the config. This is unfortunate, however, for us, since it would keep us having all of our targets having to be built exclusively. Any idea how much it would hurt other targets to have the __virt_to_phys() and __phys_to_virt() have a 16-bit fixup, even if only the upper 8 bits are used? David