* Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [130219 07:49]: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 03:30:01PM +0000, Paul Walmsley wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, 14 Feb 2013, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > > The other option could be to allow custom ioremap function pointers > > > based on address range in __arm_ioremap_pfn_caller() the same way as > > > the SoC specific static mappings are allowed. That would require adding > > > a function pointer to struct map_desc. > > > > > > Maybe that would do the trick? > > > > That sounds fine to me too. > > > > To me it makes sense to eventually handle the I/O mappings automatically > > from data in the DT -- hence the association with a bus device, which > > should be present in DT data. > > No. I really don't get why OMAP thinks it's soo special that it needs > to go around adding lots and lots of new abstractions all over the > place. Hey it's actually quite the opposite. We're trying to find a generic way of doing things in order to avoid omap specific driver hacks. > Indirect ioremap() through a function pointer so you can overload it with > OMAP specific crap? No way. Function pointers in map_desc - what the hell > for? > > You must be totally mad if you think that's a way forward, I really don't > see how you think this kind of crap would be remotely acceptable. > > Ok, so you have this problem that you need hwmod to touch a register which > is also contained within the device resources as well. That's fine. You > can do it one of two ways: > > 1. Call out from the driver at the appropriate points (which seems to be > _after_ you've ioremapped it) to access the register. > > 2. Find the resource, temporarily map the register, access it, and then > unmap it. > > No requirement what so ever to override ioremap(). AT ALL. So stop this > madness now. > > As for a function pointer in struct map_desc. You're bonkers, the lot of > you. map_desc is a structure describing the boot time static mappings > which gets discarded. Nothing keeps any references around to it, and it > is used at a time when *NOTHING ELSE* should be going on in the kernel > other than building those static mappings. Not even any arch code poking > about at devices. Or anything like that. Because if you think that's > acceptable, then we'll need to flush the cache and TLB after each and > every map_desc entry is touched - which brings a whole load of new pain > and slowness to the kernel boot. > > So please, stop this idiotic madness now. OK good point. Also it would be risky for things going wrong trying to try set up more complex stuff that early as then debugging it again depends on DEBUG_LL. > If you want such things as pci_enable_device(), then what you're actually > asking for is omap_enable_device() for OMAP devices. OMAP devices are > already specific enough to OMAP SoCs (god knows, they have really complex > and obscure behaviours that no one else in their right mind would want > to copy) that calling out to omap specific functions would never really > be a problem. I'd rather avoid adding omap_enable_device() calls to drivers as we really want to keep the drivers generic. But maybe there could be some generic bus_enable_device() function pointer that could be populated by the bus code during init. > No need for any of this crazy dev->bus shit either. Paul's suggestion on configuring things with pm_runtime_get() seems doable and is generic. Regards, Tony -- 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
