From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S936364AbXGUJwl (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jul 2007 05:52:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932265AbXGUJwe (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jul 2007 05:52:34 -0400 Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]:56692 "EHLO einhorn.in-berlin.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932165AbXGUJwd (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jul 2007 05:52:33 -0400 X-Envelope-From: stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de Message-ID: <46A1D752.6070101@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:52:18 +0200 From: Stefan Richter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.4) Gecko/20070609 SeaMonkey/1.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org CC: Stephen Rothwell Subject: CONFIG_VIRT_TO_BUS: what about bus_to_virt? X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Is it sensible and safe to let a driver which uses bus_to_virt (but not virt_to_bus) depend on CONFIG_VIRT_TO_BUS? Thanks, -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== -=== =-=-= http://arcgraph.de/sr/