From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] ACPICA: support Generic Address Structure
 bit_offset in acpi_read/write
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 09:11:34 +0800
Message-ID: <1322701894.4849.72.camel@yhuang-dev>
References: <20111111230347.20897.28797.stgit@bhelgaas.mtv.corp.google.com>
	 <201111172127.40664.rjw@sisk.pl> <1321578279.13860.108.camel@yhuang-dev>
	 <201111181025.58650.rjw@sisk.pl> <1321861880.13860.128.camel@yhuang-dev>
	 <987664A83D2D224EAE907B061CE93D53027D89B5A9@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com>
	 <1322532903.4849.24.camel@yhuang-dev>
	 <0207C53569FE594381A4F2EB66570B2A018ED45AA8@orsmsx508.amr.corp.intel.com>
	 <1322700551.4849.66.camel@yhuang-dev>
	 <0207C53569FE594381A4F2EB66570B2A018ED45DA7@orsmsx508.amr.corp.intel.com>
	 <1322701065.4849.69.camel@yhuang-dev>
	 <0207C53569FE594381A4F2EB66570B2A018ED45DCF@orsmsx508.amr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:35850 "EHLO mga11.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752533Ab1LABLg (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:11:36 -0500
In-Reply-To: <0207C53569FE594381A4F2EB66570B2A018ED45DCF@orsmsx508.amr.corp.intel.com>
Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>, Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>, Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, "Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@intel.com>, "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, "bondd@us.ibm.com" <bondd@us.ibm.com>, Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@redhat.com>

On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 09:03 +0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > In the original acpi_read/write, we just call ioremap blindly, so the
> > code in the below patch will not introduce new issue for ia64.  Do you
> > agree?
> 
> See arch/ia64/mm/ioremap.c ... ioremap() on ia64 is smart and looks
> at attributes and makes new mapping match existing ones
> 
> That doesn't deal with long-lived mappings and changes that I just
> mentioned in last e-mail - but it does mean that callers of ioremap()
> don't need to worry ... they can call "blindly".

I see.  So you think it is better to enclose page_is_ram() with #ifndef
CONFIG_IA64 in the patch, so that only ioremap() is used?

Best Regards,
Huang Ying