On 06.05.2025 18:51, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: > @@ -583,3 +584,36 @@ void *__init arch_vmap_virt_end(void) > { > return (void *)(VMAP_VIRT_START + VMAP_VIRT_SIZE); > } > + > +static void *ioremap_attr(paddr_t start, size_t len, pte_attr_t attributes) > +{ > + mfn_t mfn = _mfn(PFN_DOWN(start)); > + unsigned int offs = start & (PAGE_SIZE - 1); > + unsigned int nr = PFN_UP(offs + len); > + void *ptr = __vmap(&mfn, nr, 1, 1, attributes, VMAP_DEFAULT); > + > + if ( ptr == NULL ) > + return NULL; > + > + return ptr + offs; > +} > + > +void __iomem *ioremap_nocache(paddr_t start, size_t len) > +{ > + return ioremap_attr(start, len, PAGE_HYPERVISOR_NOCACHE); > +}
Why do you need both this and ... > +void __iomem *ioremap_cache(paddr_t start, size_t len) > +{ > + return ioremap_attr(start, len, PAGE_HYPERVISOR); > +} > + > +void __iomem *ioremap_wc(paddr_t start, size_t len) > +{ > + return ioremap_attr(start, len, PAGE_HYPERVISOR_WC); > +} > + > +void *ioremap(paddr_t pa, size_t len) > +{ > + return ioremap_attr(pa, len, PAGE_HYPERVISOR_NOCACHE); > +} ... this? And why's the 1st parameter named differently for this last one? Can't they all be in sync in this regard? Jan