On 10/04/2011 04:21 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > >> On Tuesday 04 October 2011 04:08 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>> * Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxxxxxx> [111003 14:36]: >>>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>>> >>>>> Having the SRAM base address move around with different sizes also >>>>> requires the SoC detection.. Otherwise we can end up mapping wrong >>>>> size and end up trying to access secure SRAM that will hang the system. >>>>> >>>>> The way to fix it is to move SRAM init happen much later so we don't >>>>> have to map it early. I guess now we could use ioremap for SRAM, >>>>> although we may not want device attributes for the executable code? >>>>> Got any suggestions here on how we should map SRAM later on? >>>> >>>> You can use a variant of ioremap() such as __arm_ioremap() which let you >>>> specify the memory attribute. >>> >>> OK, I'll take a look at that. >>> >> I have tried __arm_ioremap_pfn() for some DDR mapping and it didn't >> work as expected. The mapping was not getting created. > > Did you investigate why it wasn't created? Must have been a trivial > issue surely? But you have to wait until memory management is fully > initialized to call the real ioremap() though, which happens later > during the boot. > Isn't ioremap prevented from using main memory now? Rob -- 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
