linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev list <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: fixup_bigphys_addr and ioremap64 question
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:09:21 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1162786162.28571.286.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1162784661.19697.4.camel@crusty.rchland.ibm.com>


> > 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:
> 
> It's in arch/ppc/syslib/44x_common.c and it's used to trap the least
> significant 32 bits of an address and set the right ERPN for io space on
> 44x.  Something like that might be needed when 44x merges to
> arch/powerpc.

Well, my point is that since nowadays we have 64 bits struct resource
and 64 bits phys_addr_t passed to ioremap, do we still need that ? In
fact, in my upcoming patch merging io.h for 32 and 64 bits in
asm-powerpc, I've simply removed that hook and ioremap64 :-) I can add
it back still, but so far, I yet have to be convinced there is still a
good reason for that hook.

Ben.

  reply	other threads:[~2006-11-06  4:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-11-06  3:17 fixup_bigphys_addr and ioremap64 question Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-11-06  3:44 ` Josh Boyer
2006-11-06  4:09   ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
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=1162786162.28571.286.camel@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --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).