2008-01-23 11:59:20

by Ben Nizette

Subject: [PATCH -mm] define empty unxlate_dev_mem_ptr on AVR32

Defined as a NOP on AVR32 as per the asm-generic implementation.
This keeps /dev/mem happy.

Signed-Off-By: Ben Nizette <[email protected]>

---
Index: linux-2.6.24-rc8-mm1/include/asm-avr32/io.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.24-rc8-mm1.orig/include/asm-avr32/io.h
+++ linux-2.6.24-rc8-mm1/include/asm-avr32/io.h
@@ -305,6 +305,12 @@ extern void __iounmap(void __iomem *addr
#define xlate_dev_mem_ptr(p) __va(p)

/*
+ * We just keep an empty definition of this around (a-la the asm-generic
+ * implementation) to keep /dev/mem happy
+ */
+#define unxlate_dev_mem_ptr(p, a) {}
+
+/*
* Convert a virtual cached pointer to an uncached pointer
*/
#define xlate_dev_kmem_ptr(p) p

2008-01-24 10:29:44

by Haavard Skinnemoen

Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] define empty unxlate_dev_mem_ptr on AVR32

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:53:54 +1100
Ben Nizette <[email protected]> wrote:

> /*
> + * We just keep an empty definition of this around (a-la the asm-generic
> + * implementation) to keep /dev/mem happy
> + */
> +#define unxlate_dev_mem_ptr(p, a) {}

Thanks, but this should be either

#define unxlate_dev_mem_ptr(p, a) do { } while (0)

or

static inline void unxlate_dev_mem_ptr(unsigned long phys, void *addr)
{
}

I prefer the latter.

Btw, the breakage was introduced by git-x86.patch. Should I take the
fix through my avr32 tree?

Haavard

2008-01-24 10:39:19

by Ben Nizette

Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] define empty unxlate_dev_mem_ptr on AVR32

Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:53:54 +1100
> Ben Nizette <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> /*
>> + * We just keep an empty definition of this around (a-la the asm-generic
>> + * implementation) to keep /dev/mem happy
>> + */
>> +#define unxlate_dev_mem_ptr(p, a) {}
>
> Thanks, but this should be either
>
> #define unxlate_dev_mem_ptr(p, a) do { } while (0)
>
> or
>
> static inline void unxlate_dev_mem_ptr(unsigned long phys, void *addr)
> {
> }
>
> I prefer the latter.

Yeah I don't know what came over me; Mia culpa :-)

I prefer the latter too, though I think I was striving for consistency with the xlate_dev_mem_ptr #define.

--Ben

2008-01-27 06:41:20

by Ingo Molnar

Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] define empty unxlate_dev_mem_ptr on AVR32

* Ben Nizette <[email protected]> wrote:

> + * We just keep an empty definition of this around (a-la the asm-generic
> + * implementation) to keep /dev/mem happy
> + */
> +#define unxlate_dev_mem_ptr(p, a) {}

We havent had the PAT patches in x86.git for some time so there's no
unxlate_dev_mem_ptr() introduced. Perhaps this is for older -mm?

Ingo