Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:1d13:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id pp19csp178239pxb; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 03:00:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzZ63iaaNMO8HenJT/8lEMIs/YNjbLvGlwqewq5V2dcKQOlVWrs/UXZealZXz3GfjXdbOV/ X-Received: by 2002:a5d:85cf:: with SMTP id e15mr12133662ios.208.1629108032054; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 03:00:32 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1629108032; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=0+p8E2Dkq1QR7zFPCCAsfM3VEhAs1togXWY/WeyK80bTOxeCwb++PLltRRzsQEOSg1 Ah43lpbLl0fpDmWe/261ngzavPtpMQQo/Vh4Gms3abJnSe6mKcxyauFKBBHWNPy6PaeO 4c8SsQ0Z24XvgBEHO/1yzT3Q0qcVJXgKQk/mGsHdLipKjKDjh4FDFrtLVu1XJ1klPxoG dBSL5ghjq9Ylwk/S8kr9IAP96Qt4LRMl75miambU1z1JwCAC6kiioTqhXGuOd+o2Byd8 krekC8tti75CKihiNHpdH3KbInrfWgn1Igk5x4ynoQIudsrVQQjq9ivVDYEhw746pFXL ETDA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=VY9wbXklV/tdUDALM9qx5R8ZHzV4wiUCwJ46YO4Qrrs=; b=p+lPvV70ye29k/e6SkV3M67VwZPQNkSYGn6fK4OuSMCzuD67wyNqaYzDqCrXF6BHdk gTeqDJfQyN0pKT2087x83NW7tGIid/0fHxbUre8K6vbipgNxS3y/7cjMql7e4d6Zky0B kWRwMJnOvkQTDhSkzqdlYymt7kXotC5O3D7VIa1Z3JGhtZoBZ8LZmTEmtz8SNTdMPMtR GYWAS+TRpNfuK2HsfmdFp0Pf7xnjF6ajo5EYcucY1KW6PD4QKEwOe0ngsUIVqzIQEXFk 4cIl4tAZZ7WXVV8otl3wlcXHhW2aui2hOn1KoyqU7ByXyPc1ib8TYyTc/8eYteCUPkwr IStg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id r17si11068637ilo.3.2021.08.16.03.00.20; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 03:00:32 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235568AbhHPJ7e (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 16 Aug 2021 05:59:34 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:42214 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229609AbhHPJ7d (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Aug 2021 05:59:33 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7F9F6D; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 02:59:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lpieralisi (e121166-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.196.255]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 41F163F40C; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 02:59:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:58:54 +0100 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux ARM , Veronika kabatova , Robin Murphy , Will Deacon , Hanjun Guo , Sudeep Holla , Catalin Marinas Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] ACPI: osl: Add __force attribute in acpi_os_map_iomem() cast Message-ID: <20210816095854.GA2599@lpieralisi> References: <20210726100026.12538-1-lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> <20210802152359.12623-2-lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> <20210811145508.GA3650@lpieralisi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210811145508.GA3650@lpieralisi> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 03:55:08PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 03:08:24PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 12:40:28PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > The whole problem we are solving here is that ACPI, being based on > > > x86, conflates MMIO mappings with memory mappings, and has been using > > > the same underlying infrastructure for either. > > > > So let's fix that problem instead of papering over it. > > Patch (3) in this series is a fix - I would ask whether it makes > sense to merge patches (2-3) now and think about reworking the current > ACPI IO/MEM mapping API later, it can be an invasive change for a fix, > assuming we agree on how to rework the ACPI IO/MEM mapping API. What should we do then with this series ? Thanks, Lorenzo