On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > * Nicolas Pitre | 2009-06-11 16:36:42 [-0400]: > > > > >> Adding a revision history is good thing... I could not find the ARM tree > > >> but I've rebased this patch against the orion tree [0]. > > > > > >Actually, I'm leaning towards the removal of such dynamic mappings > > >altogether and keep an unconditional static mapping instead, just like > > >Kirkwood does. > > Oh now I remember: I've been counting the number possible window > > mappings and they exceeded the number of availble slots. That's why I've > > made it dynamic and board specific. However if this is not an issue than > > static is probaly the better way. > > There is no need for other physical mappings that I can see in the set > of boards we currently support. So I'll make it static until there is a > real need for dynamic mapping. I changed my mind. Actually, it is not all Orion SoC variants that support the crypto unit. I therefore kept the dynamic mapping and initialized it and registered the device only on those Socs that have crypto support. Nicolas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
