[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0803222256410.3781@apollo.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:58:59 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
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, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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"?)
Hmm. No idea. I look into that on monday (tomorrow is family
day). Right now I'm too tired to provide any useful input.
> Has anybody ever had a working 64-bit BAR on x86? Ivan? Maybe I'm missing
> something..
Same here.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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