From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/41] acpi : add helper function for
 mapping memory
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 15:20:14 +0100
Message-ID: <5559F51E.50701@citrix.com>
References: <1431893048-5214-1-git-send-email-parth.dixit@linaro.org>
	<1431893048-5214-6-git-send-email-parth.dixit@linaro.org>
	<5559E893.4000303@citrix.com>
	<555A0CF0020000780007B358@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <555A0CF0020000780007B358@mail.emea.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Julien Grall <julien.grall@citrix.com>
Cc: keir@xen.org, ian.campbell@citrix.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, tim@xen.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, Parth Dixit <parth.dixit@linaro.org>, christoffer.dall@linaro.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 18/05/15 15:01, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 18.05.15 at 15:26, <julien.grall@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On 17/05/15 21:03, Parth Dixit wrote:
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/acpi/lib.c
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
>>> +#include <xen/acpi.h>
>>> +#include <asm/mm.h>
>>> +
>>> +void __iomem *
>>> +acpi_os_map_iomem(acpi_physical_address phys, acpi_size size)
>>> +{
>>> +    return __va(phys);
>>> +}
>>
>> I would have prefer two distinct patch: one for the refactoring of
>> acpi_os_map_memory and the other for implementing the ARM part
>> explaining why only using __va.
> 
> +1
> 
>> Although, given that acpi_os_map_memory only call acpi_os_map_iomem. I
>> would move acpi_os_map_memory per-architecture. FWIW, it's what Linux does.
> 
> In which Linux version did you see this to be the case? Certainly
> not 4.1-rc or anything recent... What I'm trying to get at is that
> we should please be very careful with deviating from the ACPI CA
> derived naming as well as with what is to live in os.c.

Sorry, I had in mind an older version of the ACPI series for Linux. I
forgot to check what was really done.

Although, acpi_os_map_iomem is also part of the ACPI CA. Would a
function arch_acpi_os_map_memory suit for you?

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall