[PATCH 3/3] at91: make PLAT_PHYS_OFFSET depending on !ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT or XIP_KERNEL

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On 23:52 Mon 02 May     , Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 12:13:23AM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/memory.h b/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/memory.h
> > index c2cfe50..a643b4e 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/memory.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/memory.h
> > @@ -23,6 +23,15 @@
> >  
> >  #include <mach/hardware.h>
> >  
> > -#define PLAT_PHYS_OFFSET	(AT91_SDRAM_BASE)
> > +#define AT91_SDRAM_BASE		AT91_CHIPSELECT_1
> > +#define AT91SAM9G45_SDRAM_BASE	AT91_CHIPSELECT_6
> > +
> > +#if !defined(CONFIG_ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT) || defined(CONFIG_XIP_KERNEL)
> > +# if defined CONFIG_ARCH_AT91SAM9G45
> > +#  define PLAT_PHYS_OFFSET		AT91SAM9G45_SDRAM_BASE
> > +# else
> > +#  define PLAT_PHYS_OFFSET		AT91_SDRAM_BASE
> > +# endif
> > +#endif
> 
> Ideally, I'd like to see platforms not provide PLAT_PHYS_OFFSET.
> However, there are two cases where it's needed by generic ARM code as
> you've identified above.
> 
> Does AT91 support XIP_KERNEL?  It doesn't support XIP from flash (MTD_XIP)
> so I suspect this isn't a particularly useful configuration.
I never see a board using it
> 
> As far as ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT, maybe AT91 should force this to always
> be selected.  That then means it can eliminate the PLAT_PHYS_OFFSET
> definition entirely.
I get this in mind too but as it's sleep mark EXPERIMANTAL I was not sure to
enable it by default

but good for me too

Best Regards,
J.