Philip Blundell writes:
> >It is the way that I intend it. I don't see that you have to
> >agree, it's just the way it was meant from the outset.
>
> Is there any particular reason for that?
Yes, performance. The impact of the extra work for handling the
setup of the SDRAM allocated by the CFN CPU would hit all functions
that use the page tables significantly. In this case, the SDRAM
PCI base should not be modified by the EBSA285.
IMHO, if you're running a machine with the SDRAM located at a fixed
address in PCI space, you don't really want to have the overhead of
loading the PCI offset *twice* for each and every PTE reference.
In summary, I'm surprised that you're trying to push this when you're
trying to remove individual CPU cycles else where in the kernel. It
sounds to me very contradictory.
_____
|_____| ------------------------------------------------- ---+---+-
| | Russell King [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ---
| | | | http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/~rmk/armlinux.html / / |
| +-+-+ --- -+-
/ | THE developer of ARM Linux |+| /|\
/ | | | --- |
+-+-+ ------------------------------------------------- /\\\ |
unsubscribe: body of `unsubscribe linux-arm' to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
