On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 09:12:20AM -0500, Dave Gerlach wrote: > Ok thank you for the pointer. I agree, the memremap API looks like a better > fit for this. I think it likely makes the most sense to still add these > ioremap_exec and ioremap_exec_nocache and then call them through the > memremap API based on new flags. This will fit into the current use model > for memremap as it currently uses all of the other ioremap calls internally, > and doing it how I just described will let this code evolve along with > memremap. I would _really_ prefer not to do that. Why? Because IO memory does not have the required properties to be executable. IO memory is normally memory which has side effects - and by side effects, I mean reading it can provoke hardware to perform some action. You don't want to be executing from such memory. So, in my mind, ioremap_exec makes absolutely no sense, and having it gives people a new interface to abuse - and abuse they will. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net. -- 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
