Re: [PATCH v1 06/47] mtrr: add __arch_phys_wc_add()

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
<mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxx>
>
> Ideally on systems using PAT we can expect a swift
> transition away from MTRR. There can be a few exceptions
> to this, one is where device drivers are known to exist
> on PATs with errata, another situation is observed on
> old device drivers where devices had combined MMIO
> register access with whatever area they typically
> later wanted to end up using MTRR for on the same
> PCI BAR. This situation can still be addressed by
> splitting up ioremap'd PCI BAR into two ioremap'd
> calls, one for MMIO registers, and another for whatever
> is desirable for write-combining -- in order to
> accomplish this though quite a bit of driver
> restructuring is required.
>
> Device drivers which are known to require large
> amount of re-work in order to split ioremap'd areas
> can use __arch_phys_wc_add() to avoid regressions
> when PAT is enabled.
>
> For a good example driver where things are neatly
> split up on a PCI BAR refer the infiniband qib
> driver. For a good example of a driver where good
> amount of work is required refer to the infiniband
> ipath driver.
>
> This is *only* a transitive API -- and as such no new
> drivers are ever expected to use this.

What's the exact layout that this helps?  I'm sceptical that this can
ever be correct.

Is there some awful driver that has a large ioremap that's supposed to
contain multiple different memtypes?  If so, can we ioremap +
set_page_xyz instead?

--Andy
--
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/