From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: pawel.moll@arm.com (Pawel Moll) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:45:53 +0100 Subject: DT vs ARM static mappings In-Reply-To: <20110922131302.GO17169@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1316519479.4611.150.camel@hornet.cambridge.arm.com> <1316696696.4611.844.camel@hornet.cambridge.arm.com> <20110922131302.GO17169@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <1316699153.4611.858.camel@hornet.cambridge.arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > > Ok, what I did was grepping for all .map_io-s. Then I sorted the list > > and had a look at first 100 and about 50% of them were doing more than > > just creating mappings. > > The answer to that is: they shouldn't be now that we have the init_early > hook. The only remainder for .map_io is where platforms make run-time > decisions about what to map based on some register value somewhere > (eg, Assabet vs Assabet+Neponset). > > I do have a large patch series floating around in my git tree which tries > to clean up to all those map_io functions - the biggest stumbling block > to them is the Samsung stuff being indirected through its own tables. Awesome. I'll work with an assumption that future map_io-s will only create static mappings and nothing more then. Cheers! Pawe?