On 03/11/2013 06:56 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: > > 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. Yes, I full agree with that as well. The size should be purely HW related. So we should not take any assumption about the page size / alignment. Regards, Benoit -- 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
