[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE9FiQUa3uKZNc=5fiuvcR4bjEeQ3=RuhFVxUyKyMsJwe2YurA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:43:02 -0800
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] memblock, nobootmem: Add memblock_virt_alloc_low()
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:12:27AM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org> wrote:
>> > Like Olof, I noticed multiple boot failures on various ARM boards.
>> > I've confirmed that reverting the arch/arm part of this patch makes
>> > them all happily booting again.
>>
>> please try attached patch.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but there is no ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT
> defined in the ARM header files, so I don't see how adding that
> additional include changes anything.
there is one for arm64 and s390.
arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h:#define ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT PHYS_MAS
arch/s390/include/asm/processor.h:#define ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT 0x7fffff
--
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