Stephane Marchesin writes: > Ok, it looks like drm cvs (core and non core) has been broken on ia64 > since august. Patch attached. > > Stephane > > Index: linux/drm_bufs.h > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/dri/drm/linux/drm_bufs.h,v > retrieving revision 1.45 > diff -u -r1.45 drm_bufs.h > --- linux/drm_bufs.h 16 Jan 2005 05:40:12 -0000 1.45 > +++ linux/drm_bufs.h 4 Mar 2005 14:10:26 -0000 > @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ > > if ( (offset & (~PAGE_MASK)) || (size & (~PAGE_MASK)) ) > return -EINVAL; > -#if !defined(__sparc__) && !defined(__alpha__) > +#if !defined(__sparc__) && !defined(__alpha__) && !defined(__ia64__) > if ( offset + size < offset || offset < virt_to_phys(high_memory) ) > return -EINVAL; > #endif
Note that that check is also wrong for ppc64. I think it is going to be wrong for most 64-bit platforms, since it is assuming that you can never have ram at a higher physical address than any I/O devices. On 64-bit platforms it is quite common to have some ram and some I/O below 4GB, and some more ram above 4GB. I don't see why we need the check anyway, unless some architecture (x86?) will actually panic if you try to ioremap a physical address that is below virt_to_phys(high_memory) or something. Paul. ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
