From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 15:39:21 +0000
Subject: Static mappings at boottime
In-Reply-To: <2703439e1001300713k5782d098h6420f19565437c9f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2703439e1001300647q1149a357v3b3e9da6bd8c91cf@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100130145549.GA17097@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	<2703439e1001300713k5782d098h6420f19565437c9f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20100130153921.GA17904@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:13:42AM +0900, Khushhua Mogambo wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 11:47:36PM +0900, Khushhua Mogambo wrote:
> >> And pass already mapped Virtual addr(and not phys addr) to device drivers
> >> ?via IORESOURCE_MEM.
> >
> > But you can't do this. ?Resources take physical addresses, not virtual
> > addresses.
>  but phys addr and virt addr is both u32 numbers
>  how can kernel detect i passes virt and not phys address?

No, virtual addresses are _pointers_, not integers.

> 
> >> i thinks that way i can do most use of virtual address space for ioremap
> >> and I can set VMALLOC size to maximum possible. also drivers doesnt have
> >> to worry about mapping(and no addr space is mapped twice in two code pieces)
> >>
> >> is it considered good kernel porting practice? can we face any problem
> >> after some times?
> >
> > Definitely not.
> sorry i asks two opposite qeustions same time.
> i am hopeful "Definitely not" is reply of second question ^^

It was in reply to the first question.