From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: pratheesh@ti.com (TK, Pratheesh Gangadhar) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 14:59:42 +0530 Subject: [PATCH v8 1/1] PRUSS UIO driver support In-Reply-To: References: <1299065886-30099-1-git-send-email-pratheesh@ti.com> <1299065886-30099-2-git-send-email-pratheesh@ti.com> <20110302200956.GB23818@local> <201103022123.38050.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx at linutronix.de] > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 2:27 AM > On Wed, 2 Mar 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Wednesday 02 March 2011 21:09:56 Hans J. Koch wrote: > > > > +static struct uio_info *info; > > > > +static dma_addr_t sram_paddr, ddr_paddr; > > > > +static void *prussio_vaddr, *sram_vaddr, *ddr_vaddr; > > > > > > So the correct thing would be > > > > > > static void __iomem *prussio_vaddr; > > > static void *sram_vaddr, *ddr_vaddr; > > > > I also commented that it should not be a global variable at > > all, but a dynamic data structure referenced from the device. > > > > Not important, but Pratheesh said he'd change it. If it stays > > a global variable, I'd at least expect an explanation why > > the static variable is considered better in this case. > > I did not pick at that, because there is no indicator that we'll see > more than one PRUSS unit per SoC in the forseeable future. > It's a possibility - May be in 2-3 years time. Thanks, Pratheesh