On Wednesday 03 September 2008, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 03:05:59PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> > According to Mr. Grep, there are at least 10 ARMs that work
> > like that [__arch_ioremap] in mainline. Maybe Russell can
> > recommend one of them as a preferred model.
>
> As I've been trying to say, I see this as a separate issue for the near
> future. At the moment, I'm trying to concentrate on one aspect only.
OK ... if you think that's a "near future" thing, great! I think
most bad usage in this area came from:
- Intentional "performance hacks", achieving what can
better be done with an arch_ioremap and fixed mappings;
- Recently introduced goofage;
- Accidents/misunderstandings.
Those latter two will become much less common when GCC starts to
report errors which previously required a separate "sparse" run.
> That is, getting OMAP to the point that we're using the compiler to
> warn us when we do something silly, like passing a virtual address
> to a function which takes a physical address, and fixing the places
> which are currently wrong.
Yeah. I did a pass like that over a lot of OMAP1 drivers a few years
back (before OMAP2/OMAP3); "sparse" was a big help. If we're now ready
to have GCC tell us that stuff, that's a lot better.
- Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
