[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AF233D1473C1364ABD51D28909A1B1B7326E29B2@PGSMSX105.gar.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 14:52:24 +0000
From: "Ong, Boon Leong" <boon.leong.ong@...el.com>
To: Bryan O'Donoghue <pure.logic@...us-software.ie>
CC: "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org"
<platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
"andy.shevchenko@...il.com" <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Add Isolated Memory Regions for Quark X1000
>On 07/01/15 23:45, Ong, Boon Leong wrote:
>>> Since BIOS and grub code both use 0x00000000 as the 'off' address I
>>> think it makes sense for the kernel to continue to use that address.
>>
>> Just add on top of what Daren mentioned in another mail, based on the
>> Quark document, the base address can start from zero. Say lo=0, hi=0,
>> and WM & RM may be changed from default value, 1st 1KiB will be marked as
>IMR. It seems to me that there is no good way to test if an IMR is 'occupied'
>and/or 'enabled'
>> since enable-bit is not available. But, what is benefit of testing
>> against lo=0 & hi=0? The logic to calculate size will work under
>> lo=0 & hi=0 anway.
>
>Hi Boon Leong.
>
>I think it does make sense to add a check for rmask and wmask in the 'access all'
>state when determining if an IMR is enabled on X1000 or not
Ya, checking against rmask & wmask whether they have been changed from default stage
would help here. Thanks
--
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