[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0803221423060.3020@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 14:33:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>
cc: Thomas Meyer <thomas@...3r.de>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Natalie Protasevich <protasnb@...il.com>
Subject: Re: ohci1394 problem (MMIO broken) (was 2.6.25-rc6-git6: Reported
regressions from 2.6.24)
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, Stefan Richter wrote:
>
> Can an MMIO region reside above 0x1'0000'0000 on x86-32? ... Apparently yes,
> if CONFIG_RESOURCES_64BIT=y.
Hmm. It would only work if PAE (HIGHMEM64G) is enabled too.
And obviously the hardware has to have working 64-bit BAR's.
AND no, I don't think our x86-32 ioremap() actually works for this case,
because while the resource data may have the full 64 bits, when the
ioremap() happens it gets truncated to 32 bits.
Ingo/Thomas - should ioremap*() perhaps take "resource_size_t" or a "u64"
for the address (and then "__ioremap()" should probably take a PFN, not a
physical address, and that one can remain just a "unsigned long"?)
Has anybody ever had a working 64-bit BAR on x86? Ivan? Maybe I'm missing
something..
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists