Git pull request: mach/vmalloc.h removal, and ioremap optimizations

[nico@fluxnic.net (Nicolas Pitre)]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011, Rob Herring wrote:

> On 09/29/2011 01:42 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Sep 2011, Rob Herring wrote:
> > 
> >> On 09/29/2011 12:37 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >>> My guess would be:
> >>>
> >>>         }, {
> >>>                 .virtual        =  IO_ADDRESS(VERSATILE_SCTL_BASE),
> >>>                 .pfn            = __phys_to_pfn(VERSATILE_SCTL_BASE),
> >>>                 .length         = SZ_4K * 9,
> >>>                 .type           = MT_DEVICE
> >>>         },
> >>> #ifdef CONFIG_MACH_VERSATILE_AB
> >>>         {
> >>>                 .virtual        =  IO_ADDRESS(VERSATILE_GPIO0_BASE),
> >>>                 .pfn            = __phys_to_pfn(VERSATILE_GPIO0_BASE),
> >>>                 .length         = SZ_4K,
> >>>                 .type           = MT_DEVICE
> >>>
> >>> #define VERSATILE_SCTL_BASE            0x101E0000	/* System controller */
> >>> #define VERSATILE_GPIO0_BASE           0x101E4000	/* GPIO port 0 */
> >>>
> >>> I don't see why GPIO0 is explicitly listed here.
> >>
> >> It works for PB and AB with that removed. Here's a patch:
> > [...]
> > 
> > Thanks for testing and the patch.  I've inserted it in my patch series 
> > and pushed the result out.
> 
> So it was really Realview PBX I wanted to test my GIC changes on. Well,
> turns out it's got a similar problem, too.
> 
> However, the fix for it should perhaps be a bit different. The problem
> is that the virtual address of REALVIEW_PBX_TILE_GIC_CPU_BASE is not
> aligned. Then 0x100 + 4KB length overlaps into the DIST_BASE. So do we
> fix it in the platform or should the core code mask out the lower bits
> of the virt addr before doing any size calculations?

Please fix it in the platform static declaration.  No need to put 
run time code for something that can be fixed in the source.


Nicolas