# Re: \_\_ioremap\_at() in 2.4.0-test9-pre2

- From: Paul Mackerras \<hidden\>
- Date: 2000-09-30 01:39:32 
- List: linuxppc-dev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2000/09/9372931
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2000/09/9372642/t.md

```text

Frank Rowand writes:

> Paul Mackerras wrote:
[snip]
> > Because we'll make it the same value for all ports.  Anybody got any
> > objections to 0xff000000?

> Yes.  It is equivalently mapped on the PPC 405 at 0xe8000000.

But that's a physical address, not necessarily a virtual address,
right?  I was talking about virtual address 0xff000000.  Any
particular reason why you have to have virtual == physical?  (If there
is, my response will probably be "fix it". :-)

Paul.

--
Paul Mackerras, Senior Open Source Researcher, Linuxcare, Inc.
+61 2 6262 8990 tel, +61 2 6262 8991 fax
paulus@linuxcare.com.au, http://www.linuxcare.com.au/
Linuxcare.  Support for the revolution.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
```