# Re: \[PATCH v2 1/3\] ACPI: osl: Add \_\_force attribute in acpi\_os\_map\_iomem() cast

- From: Rafael J. Wysocki \<rafael@kernel.org\>
- Date: 2021-08-16 14:00:36 
- List: linux-acpi
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-acpi/2021/08/1479258
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-acpi/2021/07/1457305/t.md

```text
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 12:22 PM Ard Biesheuvel [ref] wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 at 11:59, Lorenzo Pieralisi
> [ref] wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 03:55:08PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 03:08:24PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 12:40:28PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > > The whole problem we are solving here is that ACPI, being based on
> > > > > x86, conflates MMIO mappings with memory mappings, and has been using
> > > > > the same underlying infrastructure for either.
> > > >
> > > > So let's fix that problem instead of papering over it.
> > >
> > > Patch (3) in this series is a fix - I would ask whether it makes
> > > sense to merge patches (2-3) now and think about reworking the current
> > > ACPI IO/MEM mapping API later, it can be an invasive change for a fix,
> > > assuming we agree on how to rework the ACPI IO/MEM mapping API.
> >
> > What should we do then with this series ?
> >
>
> It is not even clear that reworking the ACPI core is feasible to begin
> with, OTOH, fixing a sparse warning is arguably not a critical bug fix
> either, so I'd suggest we just drop that bit.

So I'm assuming that one more iteration of this series will be posted.
```