Re: dual head r128

On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > >Or, more general, treat [PCI] I/O space similar to [PCI] memory space. Just > >like we must use ioremap() for memory space: > > > >cookie = ioremap(memory_space_address, size); > >x = readb(cookie+offset); > > > >we could have

Re: dual head r128

>Or, more general, treat [PCI] I/O space similar to [PCI] memory space. Just >like we must use ioremap() for memory space: > >cookie = ioremap(memory_space_address, size); >x = readb(cookie+offset); > >we could have ioportremap() for I/O space: > >cookie =

Re: dual head r128

On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > Note to linux-kenrel readers: This discussion is the Nth attempt to find > a solution to handle both legacy IOs and PCI IOs on machines with several > IO busses memory mapped at different locations in the CPU space. > Linus: Would you accept

Re: dual head r128

On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Or, more general, treat [PCI] I/O space similar to [PCI] memory space. Just like we must use ioremap() for memory space: cookie = ioremap(memory_space_address, size); x = readb(cookie+offset); we could have ioportremap() for I/O

Re: dual head r128

Note to linux-kenrel readers: This discussion is the Nth attempt to find a solution to handle both legacy IOs and PCI IOs on machines with several IO busses memory mapped at different locations in the CPU space. >No please, is there anybody bloat-conscious on this damned list ? Burying >more and

Re: dual head r128

Note to linux-kenrel readers: This discussion is the Nth attempt to find a solution to handle both legacy IOs and PCI IOs on machines with several IO busses memory mapped at different locations in the CPU space. No please, is there anybody bloat-conscious on this damned list ? Burying more and