[PATCH] qe_lib: Remove immrbar_virt_to_phys() function

[Li Yang-r58472]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kumar Gala [mailto:galak at kernel.crashing.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 6:16 AM
> To: Li Yang-r58472
> Cc: Paul Mackerras; linuxppc-dev at ozlabs.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] qe_lib: Remove immrbar_virt_to_phys() function
> 
> 
> On Oct 30, 2006, at 12:22 AM, Li Yang-r58472 wrote:
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Paul Mackerras [mailto:paulus at samba.org]
> >> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 11:22 AM
> >> To: Li Yang-r58472
> >> Cc: linuxppc-dev at ozlabs.org
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] qe_lib: Remove immrbar_virt_to_phys() function
> >>
> >> Li Yang writes:
> >>
> >>> Remove private physical address mapping routine in qe_lib.  Users
> >>> of qe_lib should use generic functions like iopa().
> >>> The change also addresses a bug found by Timur Tabi that cmd_input
> >>> got mapped in qe_issue_cmd().  It should be written to CECDR
> >>> unmodified.
> >>
> >> Do you mean that the argument to qe_issue_cmd is a physical
address?
> >> It seems to me that the bug fix you mention is the main thing the
> >> patch does, and the removal of immrvar_virt_to_phys is a cleanup on
> >> the side that is made possible by the bugfix.
> >
> > The argument cmd_input should be offset to the MURAM base.  The
> > cleanup
> > is inspired by the bugfix but not result of the bugfix.  There are
> > still
> > other users of the immrbar_virt_to_phy() which can be replaced.  The
> > bugfix can be covered by the work of removing all users of the
> > routine.
> > Or the removal will be depending on the bugfix to complete its
> > work.  Do
> > you suggest us to separate the patches?
> 
> I'm confused, if there are other users of immrbar_virt_to_phy() how
> can you get ride of it completely?

Other users will change to use iopa() instead.  There was some bug to
use iopa() with io_block_mapping area, but it is ok to use it now.

- Leo