[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 11/36] MIPSR2 ebase isn't just CAC_BASE

To: Chad Reese <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/36] MIPSR2 ebase isn't just CAC_BASE
From: Ralf Baechle <>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:27:41 +0000
Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <>, David Daney <>,, Tomaso Paoletti <>
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 09:13:44AM -0700, Chad Reese wrote:

> From an Octeon perspective, we'd prefer that the kernel not touch ebase
> as we set it in the bootloader. The bootloader sets the proper value
> based on the number of kernels being loaded and which cores the kernel
> is loaded on. This allows some interesting things, like running 16
> kernels each on a different CPU. Although 16 kernels is just a toy
> project, we have a number of customers that run two kernels. They choose
> which cores the kernels run on dynamically at boot time.

I see your point.  If we dynamically allocate memory for exception handlers
at run-time and point ebase to it multi-kernel systems should till work
unless maybe the firmware gets disturbed by such a change of ebase.


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