From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: of_iomap() matched with plan iounmap() Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:34:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20110818.203447.462383652600224162.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20110818170226.GA16721@huya.qualcomm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110818170226.GA16721@huya.qualcomm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: davidb@codeaurora.org Cc: devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org From: David Brown Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:02:26 -0700 > The SPARC target contains of_ioremap() and of_iounmap(), which various > drivers use (generally inside of CONFIG_SBUS). > > include/linux/of_address.h contains a definition for of_iomap(), but > not corresponding unmap call. Code using this calls the regular > iounmap(). > > Is it safe to assume that of_iomap() will always be based on ioremap() > and therefore it is safe to use iounmap(), or would it be better to > define another name for drivers to use as the inverse of of_iomap(). > I'm not sure what to call it, since of_iounmap() is already taken by > SPARC. It's better to define a matching of_iounmap() interface, even if for now it is exactly iounmap()