Re: PATCH

[Pete Popov <ppopov@embeddedalley.com>]

Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004, Pete Popov wrote:
> 
> 
>>>If not, why not use a data type that covers
>>>valid offsets only when passing addresses to bus access functions? 
>>
>>The attribute and memory pcmcia addresses are just stored in these 
>>variables, and then the upper pcmcia stack layer calls ioremap on these 
>>addresses. Thus, you need the 36 bit I/O address patch, as well as the 
>>tiny pcmcia patch.
>>
>>The pcmcia I/O address is ioremapped at the socket driver level. If that 
>>was the case with the mem and attribute addresses, I wouldn't need this 
>>64 bit pcmcia patch. But since it's the upper pcmcia layer that ioremaps 
>>these addresses, I need to store tham in 64 bit types.
> 
> 
>  OK, but then phys_t should be used for ioaddr_t universally, shouldn't
> it?  Any architecture can have the controller seen in a 64-bit memory
> space, after all.

Perhaps, but when I tried that in 2.4, I got rejected. Matt had an idea 
that works for both, mips and ppc, since the 36 bit fixup_bigphys_addr 
routine is very similar. I think I'll pursue that instead, since we 
already have that routine as part of the pci address support. Thus, I 
won't have to make pcmcia changes to common files, and no more 
64bit_pcmcia.patch hanging around in my directory.

Pete