Hi Keir,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:56:10PM +0000, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 14 Mar 2005, at 12:26, Kurt Garloff wrote:
> >Shouldn't we just use the __sparc__ code path in drm_vm.c:678, then ?
>
> Well that would work short-term,
Indeed, it does.
See patch attached.
> but it doesn't generalise to all the
> other drivers now using remap_pfn_range. Surely the maintainers would
> appreciate an io_remap_ call that just does the right thing on all
> architectures?
I'm sure they would appreciate this.
> Sounds suitable as a short-term vendor/distro patch or
> proof-of-concept. But we should think about cooking up our own,
> cleaner, patch to push upstream.
Agreed.
> In fact there are a bunch of generic-code patches in our sparse tree
> that I think we should actually have as patches we apply to our
> pristine tree at build time. Then we can have the aim of actively
> pushing each of those single-purpose patches upstream and always strive
> to get the patches subdir emptied.
Yes, that's a very good plan.
Regards,
--
Kurt Garloff <kurt@xxxxxxxxxx> [Koeln, DE]
Physics:Plasma modeling <garloff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [TU Eindhoven, NL]
Linux: SUSE Labs (Director) <garloff@xxxxxxx> [Novell Inc]
drm-io-remap-pfn-range
Description: drm-io-remap-pfn-range
pgp4Ju5iOmNZg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
|
Home