linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Calculate proper ebase value for 64-bit kernels
From: Wu Zhangjin <wuzhangjin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 20:13:55 +0800
Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc :in-reply-to:references:content-type:organization:date:message-id :mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LWJ03z8zRf70fhkm1yYLfVLdgcf9mrEI05CXl6H0c7M=; b=li+PyiRBkiJtJYiwO/06awog1ZTLWRA+I4uY52IvroZhXE9oUhvVY1EbFYOapekdk+ 9ULUvqBa1UsIoMrCaAM5nbi5i5erozqQeWE3kDHtP0VCTQr2Zlp+PO9h7g9Is9GBudTq tBOdhZy8/0OYqXZf7Jbzc0NiQHIq1xdOVJbtY=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type :organization:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer :content-transfer-encoding; b=UZ3wKOFgtlwihzfEzaTN91NKxvR6FPt4MVo3aA/B+JffsFmDCOjffcW76KAbhvGZjA 78bm4+Nwve4tVxCVrJeO1u0QoybBCJiegsjfnr60TsYW4F3yOfJtR6Q7K61aa4wmVCHv cVo4hlxrDS25THCd4zptvs4z7lE+ExRKiVLu0=
In-reply-to: <20100414112458.GA8861@alpha.franken.de>
Organization: DSLab, Lanzhou University, China
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> <20100414112458.GA8861@alpha.franken.de>
Reply-to: wuzhangjin@gmail.com
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 13:24 +0200, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> 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.
> 

Hi, all

I'm not familiar with this part, is there any fixup/workaround for this
bug? otherwise, we will get a broken support for the r4k machines(at
least the loongson machines).

Regards,
        Wu Zhangjin


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