Subject: [PATCH 6/8] arm: mach-armada: add support for Armada XP board with device tree

From: [email-masked] (Ben Dooks)
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 16:01:22 +0100

On 15/05/12 15:53, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 05/15/2012 09:25 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Tuesday 15 May 2012, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>>> Le Tue, 15 May 2012 14:53:45 +0100,
>>> Ben Dooks<[email-masked]>  a ?crit :
>>>
>>>> Since the two board support files are identical, except for the names
>>>> they print, I'd say this is the job of one file. It can always be
>>>> split later.
>>>
>>> The initial motivation for keeping two files here is that the two SoC
>>> have a different number of PCIe memory areas, and those areas are
>>> typically mapped in ->map_io(). However:
>>>
>>>   * Maybe those mappings can be done using a normal ioremap() rather
>>>     than in ->map_io(), according to DT informations (but most other ARM
>>>     SoC support at the moment seem to do PCI mappings using static
>>>     mappings in ->map_io)
>>
>> I'm pretty sure we can use ioremap for new PCI implementations now.
>> Also, you can scan the device tree in map_io() if necesary, to see which
>> PCIe ports are enabled.
>
> For the i/o windows, they should be static because we want a fixed
> virtual address across platforms. 0xfef00000 is the planned address.
> Memory windows should be ioremap.

It might be worth looking at changing ioremap() to work nicely with
large page entries if it hasn't already been done.

-- 
Ben Dooks				http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer				Codethink - Providing Genius