From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754056AbbGXQ0E (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:26:04 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:46063 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753084AbbGXQ0C (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:26:02 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:26:00 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: Catalin Marinas Cc: "Jonathan (Zhixiong) Zhang" , "fu.wei@linaro.org" , "al.stone@linaro.org" , "bp @ alien8 . de Matt Fleming" , "rjw@rjwysocki.net" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 4/5] arm64: apei: implement arch_apei_get_mem_attributes() Message-ID: <20150724162600.GA21177@arm.com> References: <1437515960-16812-1-git-send-email-zjzhang@codeaurora.org> <1437515960-16812-5-git-send-email-zjzhang@codeaurora.org> <20150724145707.GD12569@arm.com> <20150724162149.GX3550@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150724162149.GX3550@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 05:21:49PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 03:57:08PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 10:59:19PM +0100, Jonathan (Zhixiong) Zhang wrote: > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h > > > +static inline pgprot_t arch_apei_get_mem_attribute(phys_addr_t addr) > > > +{ > > > + pgprot_t prot; > > > + > > > + prot = efi_mem_attributes(addr); > > > + if (prot & EFI_MEMORY_UC) > > > + return PROT_DEVICE_nGnRnE; > > > + if (prot & EFI_MEMORY_WC) > > > + return PROT_NORMAL_NC; > > > > Can we not use pgprot_noncached and pgprot_writecombine for these two? > > Actually, why do we even use pgprot_t for prot here? EFI_MEMORY_* don't > have anything to do with the arch-specific pgprot_t. Good point; the pgprot_t confused me, so my suggestion is much use after ll. We're better off with a u64 to avoid further confusion. Will