linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 15/15] work around for more than 256MB memory support

To: "tiansm@lemote.com" <tiansm@lemote.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/15] work around for more than 256MB memory support
From: "Franck Bui-Huu" <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 10:01:29 +0200
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, "Fuxin Zhang" <zhangfx@lemote.com>
Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=XsRr3fLqOLtlW/d0TG68Kn0IqrajI0XGXrqtsKXfPFpws1k/O0vhy16CvwT5bjJccSFYc1J+RGC2HbtPyJLg8n10nSFfNAqhNJguDUHxRzvYkz/nW2akzJTwtA1EK95kCibxGDOhE4cYng6o7cpUBN0FP7SQu6CK5cNse47s8Is=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=aMDpmvlzR1ABFsjRnNx2BfELCHQQxtzT0/F4IXFiydAH9uZMF0hc68NE7pw9a+B4Sch96smFfTHCYr4YVizo8QPJWHPRkyQ5w5qsfhqiQ5zjelV6vfxiiMZgYmSe0fw4nSisDgYpg7agdjb0ljOrghntfQ0j52xXg+CfLqY9VMI=
In-reply-to: <11811127744038-git-send-email-tiansm@lemote.com>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <11811127722019-git-send-email-tiansm@lemote.com> <11811127744038-git-send-email-tiansm@lemote.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On 6/6/07, tiansm@lemote.com <tiansm@lemote.com> wrote:
From: Fuxin Zhang <zhangfx@lemote.com>

Signed-off-by: Fuxin Zhang <zhangfx@lemote.com>
---
 drivers/char/mem.c |    4 ++++
 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/char/mem.c b/drivers/char/mem.c
index cc9a9d0..a19b46a 100644
--- a/drivers/char/mem.c
+++ b/drivers/char/mem.c
@@ -82,8 +82,12 @@ static inline int uncached_access(struct file *file, 
unsigned long addr)
         */
        if (file->f_flags & O_SYNC)
                return 1;
+#if defined(CONFIG_LEMOTE_FULONG) && defined(CONFIG_64BIT)
+       return (addr >= __pa(high_memory)) || ((addr >=0x10000000) && (addr < 
0x20000000));
+#else
        return addr >= __pa(high_memory);
 #endif
+#endif
 }

That would be nice to have a nice log to justify such a hack....

Thanks
--
              Franck

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>