From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: h-kanigeri2@ti.com (Kanigeri, Hari) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 09:16:23 -0600 Subject: [GIT PULL] OMAP: mailbox and iommu changes: for-next for v2.6.38 In-Reply-To: References: <20101202123304.GB10461@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20101202152053.GC10461@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Ruseell, On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Guzman Lugo, Fernando wrote: > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 08:50:07AM -0600, Guzman Lugo, Fernando wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:33 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux >>> wrote: >>> > On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 06:07:23AM -0600, Kanigeri, Hari wrote: >>> >> Hi Tony, >>> >> >>> >> The following changes since commit e8a7e48bb248a1196484d3f8afa53bded2b24e71: >>> >> ? Linus Torvalds (1): >>> >> ? ? ? ? Linux 2.6.37-rc4 >>> >> >>> >> are available in the git repository at: >>> >> >>> >> ? git://gitorious.org/iommu_mailbox/iommu_mailbox.git for_2.6.38 >>> >> >>> >> Fernando Guzman Lugo (5): >>> >> ? ? ? OMAP: mailbox: change full flag per mailbox queue instead of global >>> >> ? ? ? omap: iovmm - no gap checking for fixed address >>> >> ? ? ? omap: iovmm - add superpages support to fixed da address >>> >> ? ? ? omap: iovmm - replace __iounmap with omap_iounmap >>> > >>> > This change is wrong. ?Nothing should be directly referencing omap_iounmap >>> > nor for that matter omap_ioremap. ?Both are implementation details of the >>> > standard ioremap/iounmap APIs. >>> > >>> > Use the official APIs rather than the implementation details behind them. >>> >>> if you see where the function is used, you will see that it is not >>> calling the function, it is use as a parameter in unmap_vm_area(), if >>> I used iounmap which is a macro there I will get a compilation error. >> >> Hmm, yes, because iounmap() is defined as a macro rather than iounmap. >> >> The solution to this is to fix iounmap and __arch_iounmap macros so >> they aren't macros which take arguments. ?That will then allow them >> to be used in the way you desire. > > yes, that way it can be used in the function parameter. what is the > right thing to do? > 1) You send your patch and then I send the new version of the patches. > 2) I make a new series of the patches with the change to iounmap and I > include your patch in the series. > Can you please suggest the approach we take here ? So, either you send your suggested change as a patch and Fernando's patch will be based on it, or he can take a TODO action item to patch again if you plan to send this change later. Thank you, Best regards, Hari Kanigeri