Re: [patch] x86, voyager: fix ioremap_nocache()

[H. Peter Anvin]

David Miller wrote:
> From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:39:24 -0400
>
> > I disagree with this semantics change.  A number of code places _and 
> > drivers_ GET IT RIGHT, and these are all broken now?
>
> [ Note, James's patch that you quoted is about mapping DMA
>   memory, in dma_declare_coherent_memory(), rather than devices.
>   But I know what you are trying to talk about Jeff. :-) ]
>
> Wrt. ioremap() semanics, it is important to realize that if
> the implementation of this on x86 has been giving non-cached
> I/O mappings out up until recently, you can expect that there
> are hundreds of drivers that might now be broken.
>
> That's the sad fact of the ubiquity of x86, and it doesn't matter how
> we defined the API is some document.
>
> Anyways, my point is that this angle should be strongly considered in
> any discussion about ioremap() behavior.

There are pretty much three reasons to default to uncached, as far as I 
understand:

1. De facto historical practice (follow the MTRRs);
2. Conservatism (failure mode less drastic);
3. Compatibility with other architectures.

Arguably, the right thing is to not even have ioremap() anymore, just 
ioremap_{cache,nocache,wc} and consider any unconverted ioremap() as a 
flag to audit that particular piece of code.

I don't think that can be done "instantly", though, so defaulting 
ioremap() to uncached (as it apparently has been on other arches 
already?) is the conservative option in the meantime.

	-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/