[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130321203751.GP21478@lunn.ch>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:37:51 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
Lior Amsalem <alior@...vell.com>,
Maen Suleiman <maen@...vell.com>,
Tawfik Bayouk <tawfik@...vell.com>,
Shadi Ammouri <shadi@...vell.com>,
Eran Ben-Avi <benavi@...vell.com>,
Yehuda Yitschak <yehuday@...vell.com>,
Nadav Haklai <nadavh@...vell.com>,
Ike Pan <ike.pan@...onical.com>,
Chris Van Hoof <vanhoof@...onical.com>,
Dan Frazier <dann.frazier@...onical.com>,
Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@....com>,
Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
David Marlin <dmarlin@...hat.com>,
Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] arm: dts: Convert mvebu device tree files to 64 bits
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 09:22:36PM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Andrew Lunn,
>
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:15:33 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>
> > Could you recommend a document which introduces LPAE.
> >
> > Only being able to address 7GB seems a bit odd to me. I kind of
> > expected you set up the translation tables to map a page in the 32 bit
> > address range to any arbitrary page in the 40 bit address range. So
> > leaving 0xC0000000 to 0xffffffff in the 32bit address range clear is
> > easy. But why do you loose space in the 40bit address range?
>
> translation tables convert virtual addresses to physical addresses.
> Here, we are only talking about physical addresses. There is an overlap
> between the physical addresses used by the RAM, and the physical
> addresses at which I/O devices are visible.
>
> And I'm not sure the SDRAM address decoding windows allows to split the
> first 4 GB of RAM into two areas, one that would be mapped starting at
> physical address 0x0, and another area that would be mapped at a
> different address (above 4 GB).
So why not map the whole SDRAM above 4GB physical address?
Thanks
Andrew
--
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