Hi Quentin,
On 2024-04-24 11:11, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> Hi Jonas,
>
> On 4/24/24 00:40, Jonas Karlman wrote:
>> Hi Quentin,
>>
>> On 2024-04-15 16:16, Quentin Schulz wrote:
>>> From: Quentin Schulz
> [...]
>
>>> + if (!(tmp_mem_map->attrs & PTE_BLOCK_NON_SHARE)) {
>>
>> This
Hi Jonas,
On 4/24/24 00:40, Jonas Karlman wrote:
Hi Quentin,
On 2024-04-15 16:16, Quentin Schulz wrote:
From: Quentin Schulz
[...]
+ if (!(tmp_mem_map->attrs & PTE_BLOCK_NON_SHARE)) {
This check does not seem to work because PTE_BLOCK_NON_SHARE evaluates
to 0.
Hi Quentin,
On 2024-04-15 16:16, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> From: Quentin Schulz
>
> Allow RK3568 and RK3588 based boards to get the RAM bank configuration
> from the ROCKCHIP_TPL stage instead of the current logic. This fixes
> both an issue where 256MB of RAM is blocked for devices with >= 4GB
>
On 2024/4/15 22:16, Quentin Schulz wrote:
From: Quentin Schulz
Allow RK3568 and RK3588 based boards to get the RAM bank configuration
from the ROCKCHIP_TPL stage instead of the current logic. This fixes
both an issue where 256MB of RAM is blocked for devices with >= 4GB
of RAM and where
From: Quentin Schulz
Allow RK3568 and RK3588 based boards to get the RAM bank configuration
from the ROCKCHIP_TPL stage instead of the current logic. This fixes
both an issue where 256MB of RAM is blocked for devices with >= 4GB
of RAM and where memory holes need to be defined for devices with
5 matches
Mail list logo