From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754581Ab2BFBhu (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 5 Feb 2012 20:37:50 -0500
Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:54938 "EHLO mga01.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753436Ab2BFBhs (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 5 Feb 2012 20:37:48 -0500
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="114414812"
Message-ID: <1328492266.9146.9.camel@yhuang-dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ACPI, APEI: Add RAM mapping support to ACPI
From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@redhat.com>, lenb@kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, rjw@sisk.pl, trenn@suse.de,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:37:46 +0800
In-Reply-To: <CAErSpo5hrWz81SSS7Tg0HmTZ2seg76pa8kAe4iauAoqL6YAoOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20120121021318.14723.45698.stgit@amt.stowe>
	 <20120121021330.14723.72537.stgit@amt.stowe>
	 <CAErSpo5KDxkcMn3OrvujeSHhzF7PjG0hsYqMXe1HmpPJaLHvDg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1327798687.7922.44.camel@yhuang-dev>
	 <CAErSpo5hrWz81SSS7Tg0HmTZ2seg76pa8kAe4iauAoqL6YAoOw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2-1 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi,

On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 13:41 -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
> > Hi, Bjorn,
> >
> > Sorry for late.  Just return from Chinese new year holiday.
> >
> > On Sat, 2012-01-21 at 08:04 -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> > +
> >> > +static void __iomem *acpi_map(acpi_physical_address pg_off, unsigned long pg_sz)
> >> > +{
> >> > +       unsigned long pfn;
> >> > +
> >> > +       pfn = pg_off >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> >> > +       if (should_use_kmap(pfn)) {
> >> > +               if (pg_sz > PAGE_SIZE)
> >> > +                       return NULL;
> >> > +               return (void __iomem __force *)kmap(pfn_to_page(pfn));
> >> > +       } else
> >> > +               return acpi_os_ioremap(pg_off, pg_sz);
> >>
> >> This implies that ioremap() works differently on ia64 than on x86.
> >> Apparently one can ioremap() RAM on x86, but not on ia64.  Why is this
> >> different?  Shouldn't we instead fix ioremap() on ia64 so it works the
> >> same as on x86?
> >
> > If my understanding were correct, ioremap can not work for RAM on x86.
> > So we need to use kmap for RAM.  And on IA64, ioremap works for RAM and
> > will take care of cache attributes while kmap will not.  So ioremap is
> > used on IA64, while kmap is used on x86.
> 
> My point is that the *user* of ioremap() shouldn't need to care what
> architecture we're on.  For example, maybe the ioremap()
> implementation could be changed so that it uses kmap() internally when
> necessary.
> 
> >> I looked at the ia64 ioremap(), and I can't see the reason it fails
> >> for RAM.  Huang, do you remember the details from 76da3fb3575?
> 
> This question is still open.  Do you remember anything about it?

Another question about kmap on IA64.  If my understanding were correct,
kmap() is just page_address() on IA64.  So it is just uses the identity
map instead of creating a new map.  Will there be any problem with it
compared with ioremap()?

Best Regards,
Huang Ying