On Fri, 29 Oct 2010, Daniel Walker wrote: > On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 23:03 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 02:43:16PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 02:24:33PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is what the function currently has, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .macro addruart, rp, rv > > > > > > > ldr \rp, =MSM_DEBUG_UART_PHYS > > > > > > > ldr \rv, =MSM_DEBUG_UART_BASE > > > > > > > .endm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So if we have a MSM_DEBUG_UART_PHYS and MSM_DEBUG_UART_BASE we're > > > > > > > returning it. We don't actually have those values for all the boards > > > > > > > tho. My understanding was that there are some generic arm changes > > > > > > > needed, but I need to confirm that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Just return 0 in both registers when you have nothing better to return. > > > > > > > > > > That's not a good idea - it'll cause 512MB of 1:1 mappings to be setup > > > > > at virtual location 0 using the IO flags, which may conflict on ARMv6+. > > > > > A better idea would be to return 0xfff00000, which'll cause it to only > > > > > populate the top-most 1MB. > > > > > > > > Given that this a phony address, better test for 0 explicitly and skip > > > > the mapping as well as bailing out early from putchar, etc. > > > > > > That could be 0 phys, which given there is no defined memory layout on > > > ARM, I would not put it past someone to put a UART at phys location 0 > > > one day. > > > > Who knows. But in this case I think it is probably cleaner to just care > > about the virtual address, and do something like this: > > I need something for this merge window (which is closing soon) .. So I'm > just going to go with my original revert .. It seems like anything I do > to get addruart to return something turns into too large a patch which I > don't want to force. Could you at least comment the patch I posted for you? If this fixes the issue then Russell might just merge it now. In any case, that kind of fix may perfectly well be merged during the -rc period since that's exactly what the -rc period is all about: fixing those kind of fallouts after the big merge. Nicolas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
