From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dilinger@queued.net (Andres Salomon) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:13:35 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: mmp: map sram as MT_MEMORY rather than MT_DEVICE In-Reply-To: <20110823000755.GE3895@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1313377794-26721-1-git-send-email-leoy@marvell.com> <1313377794-26721-2-git-send-email-leoy@marvell.com> <20110822164740.5682541b@queued.net> <20110823000755.GE3895@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20110822191335.3dbe99b9@debxo> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 01:07:55 +0100 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: [...] > > @@ -87,7 +88,8 @@ static int __devinit sram_probe(struct > > platform_device *pdev) > > info->sram_phys = (phys_addr_t)res->start; > > info->sram_size = resource_size(res); > > - info->sram_virt = ioremap(info->sram_phys, > > info->sram_size); > > + info->sram_virt = __arm_ioremap(info->sram_phys, > > info->sram_size, > > + MT_MEMORY); > > Not a good idea fiddling about under the covers like that. The reason > that MT_MEMORY is not in asm/io.h is to stop it being used like this - > MT_MEMORY etc are not meant for general purpose use. > > It needs to be looked at properly rather than working behind the APIs, > and making my life a misery by doing so, preventing me from making > changes where necessary by this kind of back-door use. > > I guess we need a new ioremap_xxx() variant to cope with this. Something like ioremap_exec()? I have no idea what the related MT_ entry would be (as someone who's new to the ARM world, it's not entirely clear what the semantic distinctions are between the various MT_ entries).