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

[Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>]

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 ]