Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > David Miller wrote: >> From: Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> >> Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 10:10:30 +0100 >> >>> On Monday 25 May 2009, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >>>>> Right, that makes sense. However, most drivers use the field to store the >>>>> physical address, not the iomap token. Maybe there should be a new field >>>>> in struct sja1000_priv for the virtual address, but that would be a change >>>>> to the base driver, not just to the OF portion. >>>> Is that common practice? If yes, I will add a member to store the >>>> virtual address to struct sja1000_priv. >>> I grepped through the network driver for usage of ->base_addr, and >>> it's somewhat inconsistent. The majority of the users use it for >>> a physical address, but there are also a few that use it for the >>> __iomem token. >>> >>> Casts between unsigned long and qualified (__iomem, __user, const, ...) >>> pointers do not cause a warning, but can easily lead to bugs when >>> another user casts to an unqualified pointer. >> It's such a baroque thing, there is no reason to set it at all if you >> ask me. It's only use is to allow ISA and similar primitive bus >> devices to have their I/O ports changed via ifconfig. > > OK, I see, there are good reasons not to (mis-)use dev->base_addr. I > will prepare a patch for the SJA1000 CAN drivers.
I have just sent out a patch series fixing this issue and providing a revised patch for the SJA1000 OF platform driver: [net-next-2.6 PATCH 0/3] can: sja1000: misused netdev->base_addr and OF platform driver Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
