On Wednesday 05 October 2011 08:09 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Rob Herring wrote: > >> 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. >>> I didn't investigate further on it but may be it was because of the ordering as you pointed out. The new __arm_ioremap_exe() seems to me a good idea and should solve the problem. Regards Santosh -- 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
