From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Hunter Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] ARM: dts: Add GPMC node for OMAP2, OMAP4 and OMAP5 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:56:44 -0500 Message-ID: <513E1ADC.6030208@ti.com> References: <1362763654-9660-1-git-send-email-jon-hunter@ti.com> <1362763654-9660-6-git-send-email-jon-hunter@ti.com> <513A5B23.5070302@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from arroyo.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.40]:46541 "EHLO arroyo.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751565Ab3CKR4w (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:56:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Ezequiel Garcia Cc: Javier Martinez Canillas , Tony Lindgren , Benoit Cousson , device-tree , linux-omap , linux-arm On 03/09/2013 06:42 AM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas > wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >>> >>> Yes you are correct. In general, I have been trying to stay some-what >>> consistent with what hwmod was doing as this was being auto-generated by >>> some hardware design specs and I believe they wanted to eventually get >>> to the point where DT files would be auto-generated too for OMAP. >>> Furthermore my understanding is that the smallest page that can be >>> mapped by the kernel for ARM is 4kB. So if you declare it as 0x2d0 or >>> 0x1000 it will map a 4kB page (I could be wrong here). >>> >>> I don't have any strong feelings here but will do what the consensus >>> prefers. >>> >> >> Yes, you are right here. >> >> I forget that ioremap() does a page-aligned mapping and since the >> minimum page size for ARM is 4KB as you said, there is no difference >> between using 0x2d0 and 0x1000. Sorry for the noise. >> > > Certainly, I don't have strong feelings about this. > FWIW, mvebu maintainers imposes a "minimal" address space request > policy. > > On the other side, it seems to me we shouldn't look at internal kernel > implementation (i.e. ioremap page-alignment) to make this decision. I agree with that. I am not sure if Tony/Benoit have any comments on what they would like to do here to be consistent for the omap bindings. > Somehow, I feel this is almost a nitpick, so don't take this too seriously. No problem. Probably good to align on something sooner rather than later. Cheers Jon