From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:25:07 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 17/24] ARM: OMAP: use __iomem pointers for MMIO In-Reply-To: <20120916203850.GI4521@atomide.com> References: <1347658492-11608-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <1347658492-11608-18-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <20120915181057.GH4521@atomide.com> <201209152014.37989.arnd@arndb.de> <20120916203850.GI4521@atomide.com> Message-ID: <20120917212506.GB11762@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Tony Lindgren [120916 13:39]: > * Arnd Bergmann [120915 13:15]: > > On Saturday 15 September 2012, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > With my patches, this is now all omap1 specific and > > > moved to arch/arm/mach-omap1/include/mach/hardware.h. > > > It's probably easiest to just update this patch on > > > top of the hardware.h changes I've done. > > > > Yes, sounds good. Do you want to send a patch for that > > and let me drop this one then? > > Yes I can pick this one and update it against one of my > branches to avoid merge conflicts. This applies against mach-omap1/include/mach/hardware.h with some fuzz so no issues there. But I think we should not apply it as these are physical addresses, not virtual addresses for omap1. We have IOMEM already in use for omap_read/write because of: #define OMAP1_IO_ADDRESS(pa) IOMEM((pa) - OMAP1_IO_OFFSET) I think the right solution is to eventually get rid of omap_read/write for omap1 also and replace them with ioremap + readl/writel. Or am I missing something? Regards, Tony