On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 05:17:24PM +, Winiarski, Michal wrote:
> On śro, 2015-09-16 at 11:50 +0200, Michał Winiarski wrote:
> > According to bspec, some parts of HW expect the addresses to be in
> > a canonical form where bits [63:48] == [47].
> > If we're using 32b addressing, we never need to
On śro, 2015-09-16 at 11:50 +0200, Michał Winiarski wrote:
> According to bspec, some parts of HW expect the addresses to be in
> a canonical form where bits [63:48] == [47].
> If we're using 32b addressing, we never need to handle such high
> addresses, but since we've recently added 48b address s
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:50:50AM +0200, Michał Winiarski wrote:
> According to bspec, some parts of HW expect the addresses to be in
> a canonical form where bits [63:48] == [47].
> If we're using 32b addressing, we never need to handle such high
> addresses, but since we've recently added 48b ad
According to bspec, some parts of HW expect the addresses to be in
a canonical form where bits [63:48] == [47].
If we're using 32b addressing, we never need to handle such high
addresses, but since we've recently added 48b address space support,
lets satisfy the HW by converting the address prior t
