[off the list]
On 21/05/15 13:13, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 21.05.15 09:35:47, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 20/05/15 17:48, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 02:31:59PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
On 20.05.15 13:22:13, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2015 18:24:16 +01
On 21.05.15 09:35:47, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 20/05/15 17:48, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 02:31:59PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> >> On 20.05.15 13:22:13, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 12 May 2015 18:24:16 +0100
> >>> Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at
On 20/05/15 17:48, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 02:31:59PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
>> On 20.05.15 13:22:13, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 May 2015 18:24:16 +0100
>>> Will Deacon wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 05:20:49PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 12.05
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 02:31:59PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 20.05.15 13:22:13, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 May 2015 18:24:16 +0100
> > Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 05:20:49PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> > > > On 12.05.15 13:30:57, Will Deacon wrote:
>
> > >
On 20.05.15 13:22:13, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2015 18:24:16 +0100
> Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 05:20:49PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> > > On 12.05.15 13:30:57, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > For allocation of 16MB cont. phys mem of a defconfig kernel (4KB
> > > defau
On Tue, 12 May 2015 18:24:16 +0100
Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 05:20:49PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> > On 12.05.15 13:30:57, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:14:38AM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> > > > On 05.05.15 11:53:29, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > On
On 12.05.15 18:24:16, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 05:20:49PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> > For allocation of 16MB cont. phys mem of a defconfig kernel (4KB
> > default pagesize) I see this different approaches:
>
> 16MB sounds like an awful lot. Is this because you have tonnes
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 05:20:49PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 12.05.15 13:30:57, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:14:38AM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> > > On 05.05.15 11:53:29, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 09:49:32PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> > >
Will,
On 12.05.15 13:30:57, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:14:38AM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> > On 05.05.15 11:53:29, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 09:49:32PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> > > > From: Radha Mohan Chintakuntla
> > > >
> > > > In case of AR
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:14:38AM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 05.05.15 11:53:29, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 09:49:32PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> > > From: Radha Mohan Chintakuntla
> > >
> > > In case of ARCH_THUNDER, there is a need to allocate the GICv3 ITS table
On 05.05.15 11:53:29, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 09:49:32PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> > From: Radha Mohan Chintakuntla
> >
> > In case of ARCH_THUNDER, there is a need to allocate the GICv3 ITS table
> > which is bigger than the allowed max order. So we are forcing it only
On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 09:49:32PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> From: Radha Mohan Chintakuntla
>
> In case of ARCH_THUNDER, there is a need to allocate the GICv3 ITS table
> which is bigger than the allowed max order. So we are forcing it only in
> case of 4KB page size.
Does this problem disa
From: Radha Mohan Chintakuntla
In case of ARCH_THUNDER, there is a need to allocate the GICv3 ITS table
which is bigger than the allowed max order. So we are forcing it only in
case of 4KB page size.
Signed-off-by: Radha Mohan Chintakuntla
Signed-off-by: Robert Richter
---
arch/arm64/Kconfig
13 matches
Mail list logo