Hi Olof,
On Saturday 15 of September 2012 17:44:55 Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 10:13:37AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > +static void __iomem *exynos_cpu_boot_reg(int cpu)
> > +{
> > + return S5P_VA_SYSRAM_NS + 0x1c + 4*cpu;
> > +}
>
> This communication area in sysram should probably be seen as a part of
> the firmware interface. It should thus be defined as part of the binding
> instead, i.e. through a reg property or similar there. That also would
> make it easy to convert to using ioremap() instead of iodesc tables,
> which always a nice thing.
The problem with SYSRAM_NS is that it might be also used in other code, not
related to firmware only. I don't know exactly all the use cases for it.
Is it really a big problem or we could let it be for now, merge the patches
for firmware and then convert SYSRAM_NS to dynamic mapping when its
situation clarifies?
Best regards,
--
Tomasz Figa
Samsung Poland R&D Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
