On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 14:21:57 -0400
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to just phase out the base of dev->base_addr completely? I tend to prefer adding a "void __iomem *regs" to struct netdev_private, and ignore dev->base_addr completely.
Yes, this is the way to go.
(BTW, Jeff, technically it's the 'ifmap' that the user uses
to pass base_addr into the kernel. The kernel drivers use
the netdev struct one, which is an unsigned long)