On Wednesday 03 September 2008, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 03:05:59PM -0700, David Brownell wrote: > > According to Mr. Grep, there are at least 10 ARMs that work > > like that [__arch_ioremap] in mainline. Maybe Russell can > > recommend one of them as a preferred model. > > As I've been trying to say, I see this as a separate issue for the near > future. At the moment, I'm trying to concentrate on one aspect only. OK ... if you think that's a "near future" thing, great! I think most bad usage in this area came from: - Intentional "performance hacks", achieving what can better be done with an arch_ioremap and fixed mappings; - Recently introduced goofage; - Accidents/misunderstandings. Those latter two will become much less common when GCC starts to report errors which previously required a separate "sparse" run. > That is, getting OMAP to the point that we're using the compiler to > warn us when we do something silly, like passing a virtual address > to a function which takes a physical address, and fixing the places > which are currently wrong. Yeah. I did a pass like that over a lot of OMAP1 drivers a few years back (before OMAP2/OMAP3); "sparse" was a big help. If we're now ready to have GCC tell us that stuff, that's a lot better. - Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
