On 9/18/07, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
quoted text
>
>
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >
> > Alright, here is the same patch inline with s/recommended/required/ language:
>
> Well, the thing is, I'm not at all sure that I agree with this.
>
> If you use ioport_map/unmap, then you really *should* access them with the
> proper iomem accessors (ioread/iowrite). The fact that it may happen to
> work (when using the default lib/iomap.c implementation, at least) on
> some architectures and with the current implementation still doesn't mean
> that you should necessarily use readb/writeb.
>
> After all, you cannot use "inb/outb" on it, even if would happen to be an
> IO address.
>
> So what is this usage that wants to use the bogus accessor? Why not fix
> that instead of adding documentation for something that is very arguably
> something we want to *avoid* having people do!

ACK -- driver developers use this just to save themselves a few lines
from calling pci_resource_start() and friends. How about having an
inline which does what pci_iomap() does except it doesn't call
ioport_map() ? I am just not sure where this would go..

  Luis
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/