[PATCH] qe_lib: Remove immrbar_virt_to_phys() function

Kumar Gala galak at kernel.crashing.org
Tue Oct 31 13:46:15 EST 2006


On Oct 30, 2006, at 8:28 PM, Li Yang-r58472 wrote:

>> -----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.

Hmm, what are the other users doing?  I think we should avoid using  
iopa.

- kumar





More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list