From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: linuxppc-dev list <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
Subject: fixup_bigphys_addr and ioremap64 question
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 14:17:25 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1162783045.28571.283.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
While merging io.h between 32 and 64 bits arch/powerpc, I stumbled upon
this little gem :-)
So we have these:
- If CONFIG_PHYS_64BIT is not set, nothing special. phys_addr_t is
defined to be 32 bits.
- If it is set however, we have phys_addr_t defined to be 64 bits in
asm-ppc/mmu.h.
So why do we have both ioremap and ioremap64 knowing that the former is
defined to take a phys_addr_t argument ?
Currently, we have both, with the only difference being that ioremap
calls ioremap64 but also passes the argument through a
fixup_bigphys_addr() function first.
It took me a while to find it ... it's not defined in generic code but
in platform code (ugh !). In fact, the only version of it we have in
arch/powerpc is in the 85xx support and does:
phys_addr_t fixup_bigphys_addr(phys_addr_t addr, phys_addr_t size)
{
return addr;
};
So here's my question: Is it, as I think, some old mecanism that was
useful when ioremap didn't take a phys_addr_t argument and resources
didn't have 64 bits fields and thus we had a way to "remap" IOs from a
32 bits space into a 64 bits space in a platform specific way ?
Now, the big question is: do we still need that ?
If, as I expect, the answer is no, then I'll just remove it. I'll also
remove ioremap64 from arch/powerpc since ioremap can take a 64 bits
value directly.
Now, if the answer is yes, then I'll turn it into a ppc_md. call since
it its current form, it's just broken.
Ben.
next reply other threads:[~2006-11-06 3:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-11-06 3:17 Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2006-11-06 3:44 ` fixup_bigphys_addr and ioremap64 question Josh Boyer
2006-11-06 4:09 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-11-06 4:16 ` Josh Boyer
2006-11-06 4:46 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-11-06 16:45 ` Matt Porter
2006-11-06 19:27 ` Kumar Gala
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1162783045.28571.283.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).