On Thu, 30 Aug 2012, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 06:29:53PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
a pedantic observation, you can do with it what you wish (i'm not a list subscriber). in drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vm.c, we read (line 629):
#if !defined(__arm__) if (io_remap_pfn_range(vma, vma->vm_start, (map->offset + offset) >> PAGE_SHIFT, vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start, vma->vm_page_prot)) return -EAGAIN; #else if (remap_pfn_range(vma, vma->vm_start, (map->offset + offset) >> PAGE_SHIFT, vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start, vma->vm_page_prot)) return -EAGAIN; #endif
This code goes down to:
commit 4b7fb9b5746554d460e7bc986341d4b2db01e0b6 Author: Jordan Crouse jcrouse@codeaurora.org Date: Thu May 27 13:40:26 2010 -0600
drm: Add __arm defines to DRM Add __arm defines to specify behavior specific for an ARM processor. Signed-off-by: Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@codeaurora.org> Signed-off-by: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>Even at that time io_remap_pfn_range on arm was defined as:
#define io_remap_pfn_range(vma,from,pfn,size,prot) \ remap_pfn_range(vma, from, pfn, size, prot)
so it's not clear what the preprocessor test is for. admittedly, it should work, it just seems unnecessary. and it makes the code more confusing than it needs to be, but perhaps i've just misread something.
I agree that this shouldn't be necessary.
for simplicity, i can submit a patch that just does a straight call to remap_pfn_range(), unless someone can recognize something really subtle happening here.
rday