On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 10:03:34PM +0100, Russell King wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 01:10:39PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 01:38:52PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > On Monday 29 August 2005 10:09 am, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > linux-2.6.13-trini/drivers/serial/kgdb_8250.c | 594 > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > The existing stuff in drivers/serial is named "8250_*"; is > > > there a reason you're using "kgdb_8250" rather than "8250_kgdb"? > > > > All the other kgdb stuff tends to be prefixed, not suffixed. But I > > don't really care either way. > > I'd prefer it was 8250_kgdb.c actually - that keeps it along side the > other 8250 files.
Will do. > > > > + switch (CURRENTPORT.iotype) { > > > > + case UPIO_MEM: > > > > + if (CURRENTPORT.mapbase) > > > > + kgdb8250_needs_request_mem_region = 1; > > > > + if (CURRENTPORT.flags & UPF_IOREMAP) { > > > > + CURRENTPORT.membase = > > > > ioport_map(CURRENTPORT.mapbase, > > > > + 8 << > > > > KGDB8250_REG_SHIFT); > > > > > > Shouldn't this be ioremap instead of ioport_map? > > > > If I remember right from the testing, no. Or if my memory is wrong and > > that's retorihcal, sure. > > ioport_map() is supposed to be used to map the IO range for the ioread/ > iowrite operations. IOW, it takes something compatible with inb() and > friends and converts it to something compatible with ioread8() and > friends. > > It does not take a MMIO cookie, so the code above appears to be > conceptually wrong. > So it's luck (or another mapping I didn't see elsewhere) that this worked, and it should still be ioremap(...) to use with ioread/write8 later on in the code? -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/