From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:25:44 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:5562 "EHLO dl5rb.ham-radio-op.net") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S20021963AbXHBJZm (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:25:42 +0100 Received: from denk.linux-mips.net (denk.linux-mips.net [127.0.0.1]) by dl5rb.ham-radio-op.net (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l729PevS023214; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:25:41 +0100 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by denk.linux-mips.net (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id l729PcQx023213; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:25:39 +0100 Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:25:38 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: Alan Cox , Sergei Shtylyov , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: Modpost warning on Alchemy Message-ID: <20070802092538.GC22697@linux-mips.org> References: <20070801115231.GA20323@linux-mips.org> <46B07B36.1000501@ru.mvista.com> <46B086EB.2030101@ru.mvista.com> <20070801163926.038c48db@the-village.bc.nu> <20070801165812.3bdb269f@the-village.bc.nu> <20070801162110.GB14756@linux-mips.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 16009 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 05:33:25PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > Which happens to be the solution that is Linus-incompatible so I may > > eventually have to change it ;-) > > Well, however we do it, the width of the physical address cookie used > with ioremap() should not be forced to be related to the width of the > virtual address space in any way. I see no reason for us to be crippled > by limitations of some other architectures or, worse yet, by ones of some > code specific to some other platform. It's the physical not virtual address and as you say yourself it's a cookie so could potencially be some opaque value that isn't a physical address at all. And I wouldn't quite call it crippling that's certainly way exagerated. Ralf