linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Calculate proper ebase value for 64-bit kernels

To: Wu Zhangjin <wuzhangjin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Calculate proper ebase value for 64-bit kernels
From: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:24:58 +0200
Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <1271232185.25872.142.camel@falcon>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <1270585790-12730-1-git-send-email-ddaney@caviumnetworks.com> <1271135034.25797.41.camel@falcon> <20100413073435.GA6371@alpha.franken.de> <20100413171610.GA16578@linux-mips.org> <1271232185.25872.142.camel@falcon>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 04:03:05PM +0800, Wu Zhangjin wrote:
> If using CKSEG0 as the ebase, CKSEG0 is defined as 0xffffffff80000000,
> then we get the address: 0x97ffffff80000100, is this address ok?

the address is broken TO_UNCAC doesn't work properly for CKSEG0 addresses.
And that's IMHO the real bug... I'm wondering whether this 
set_uncached_handler() stunt is even needed. Is there a machine
where CKSEG0 and CKSEG1 address different memory ? If not, we could
just use the normal set_handler() function and be done with it.

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessary a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]

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