On 03/09/2013 06:42 AM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas > <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@xxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Yes you are correct. In general, I have been trying to stay some-what >>> consistent with what hwmod was doing as this was being auto-generated by >>> some hardware design specs and I believe they wanted to eventually get >>> to the point where DT files would be auto-generated too for OMAP. >>> Furthermore my understanding is that the smallest page that can be >>> mapped by the kernel for ARM is 4kB. So if you declare it as 0x2d0 or >>> 0x1000 it will map a 4kB page (I could be wrong here). >>> >>> I don't have any strong feelings here but will do what the consensus >>> prefers. >>> >> >> Yes, you are right here. >> >> I forget that ioremap() does a page-aligned mapping and since the >> minimum page size for ARM is 4KB as you said, there is no difference >> between using 0x2d0 and 0x1000. Sorry for the noise. >> > > Certainly, I don't have strong feelings about this. > FWIW, mvebu maintainers imposes a "minimal" address space request > policy. > > On the other side, it seems to me we shouldn't look at internal kernel > implementation (i.e. ioremap page-alignment) to make this decision. I agree with that. I am not sure if Tony/Benoit have any comments on what they would like to do here to be consistent for the omap bindings. > Somehow, I feel this is almost a nitpick, so don't take this too seriously. No problem. Probably good to align on something sooner rather than later. Cheers Jon -- 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
