From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: greg@kroah.com (Greg KH) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 16:25:39 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: allow, but warn, when issuing ioremap() on RAM In-Reply-To: <20101008230451.GB10975@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1286444662-16843-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <20101007192245.GC26435@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20101008175308.GA10975@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20101008230451.GB10975@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20101008232539.GA28697@kroah.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sat, Oct 09, 2010 at 12:04:51AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 10:37:10PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > People have been discussing them, but you can't expect a perfect > > solution to pop up within one release cycle, specially when people > > have real issues to deal with. > > Two release cycles. It was queued for the previous release, was posted > to the mailing list, was de-queued, and then re-added for the last merge > window. > > That's not no warning - that's almost six months. > > http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20100408.094818.d6854bd5.en.html > > So what you're telling me is that in six months, not one driver has been > touched to address this issue? So, if no one in that time has done any > work on this, then what use is it going to be making the kernel issue > a warning instead? > > So, since this has been known about for six months to the day, I completely > fail to see how making this a warning instead will create the necessary > motivation for the issue to be addressed. I doubt that people even noticed that this was a problem. Unless you throw a run-time warning at them, or even better, break the build of their drivers, they will not notice. Also, how can we fix this in a driver, what is the proper steps to do so? thanks, greg k-h