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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210726100026.12538-1-lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
 <20210802152359.12623-2-lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> <YRKtEDycefrZLB3X@infradead.org>
 <CAMj1kXEB1CFj1svCWu7yOoUi_OkEqYEUQnB_XWOd3gD+ejO_6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <YRPZ2Kqb/MFggHzQ@infradead.org> <20210811145508.GA3650@lpieralisi> <20210816095854.GA2599@lpieralisi>
In-Reply-To: <20210816095854.GA2599@lpieralisi>
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 16 Aug 2021 12:21:37 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXHM8tG2f-i6u8Ohb0RV9XTqq2N1Oooz_Q2kvLpdfTMxqw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] ACPI: osl: Add __force attribute in
 acpi_os_map_iomem() cast
To:     Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Veronika kabatova <vkabatov@redhat.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 at 11:59, Lorenzo Pieralisi
<lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> wrote:
>
> 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 ?
>

It is not even clear that reworking the ACPI core is feasible to begin
with, OTOH, fixing a sparse warning is arguably not a critical bug fix
either, so I'd suggest we just drop that bit.