From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F29A67C3F for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 23:53:37 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:05:33 -0500 From: Matt Porter To: "David H. Lynch Jr." Subject: Re: ioremap() fails for >64 MB Message-ID: <20060823140533.GA10331@gate.crashing.org> References: <1156232469.26041.19.camel@caxton.int.avalon.com.au> <44EAC56D.5020508@cambridgebroadband.com> <44EB717D.3080800@dlasys.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <44EB717D.3080800@dlasys.net> Cc: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 05:05:01PM -0400, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: > is ioremap() failing or is vmalloc failing ? > > ioremap should just assign a virtual address to a physical address - > does it actually allocate anything ? > I beleive I am ioremap()ing a greater than 64MB Flash ROM and I do > not think it is failing. ioremap() allocates virtual address space in order to be able to do the assignment. The ability to allocate this vmalloc space (which is used by ioremap() and vmalloc() calls) varies based on amount of memory, etc. in a system. It also depends on how good of a quality of a board port is done. It's possible to do some very stupid things that constrict availability of vmalloc space. So YMMV versus others. -Matt