Re: [PATCH v2] MIPS: fix incorrect mem=X@Y handling

2018-01-31 Thread Marcin Nowakowski
Hi Mathieu, On 31.01.2018 08:47, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: Since it's been a week, could you confirm the patch is ok as-is or do you think some comment(s) from James should be incorporated ? I'll prepare an updated patch that includes James' suggestions - I think they will lead to an overall

Re: [PATCH v2] MIPS: fix incorrect mem=X@Y handling

2018-01-30 Thread Mathieu Malaterre
Hi Marcin, Since it's been a week, could you confirm the patch is ok as-is or do you think some comment(s) from James should be incorporated ? On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 3:17 PM, James Hogan wrote: > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 10:00:59PM +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >> From: Marcin Nowakowski >> >

Re: [PATCH v2] MIPS: fix incorrect mem=X@Y handling

2018-01-23 Thread James Hogan
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 10:00:59PM +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > From: Marcin Nowakowski > > Change 73fbc1eba7ff added a fix to ensure that the memory range between Please refer to commits with e.g. commit 73fbc1eba7ff ("MIPS: fix mem=X@Y commandline processing"). > PHYS_OFFSET and low memo

Re: [PATCH v2] MIPS: fix incorrect mem=X@Y handling

2018-01-23 Thread Matt Redfearn
Hi On 21/12/17 21:00, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: From: Marcin Nowakowski Change 73fbc1eba7ff added a fix to ensure that the memory range between PHYS_OFFSET and low memory address specified by mem= cmdline argument is not later processed by free_all_bootmem. This change was incorrect for systems

[PATCH v2] MIPS: fix incorrect mem=X@Y handling

2017-12-21 Thread Mathieu Malaterre
From: Marcin Nowakowski Change 73fbc1eba7ff added a fix to ensure that the memory range between PHYS_OFFSET and low memory address specified by mem= cmdline argument is not later processed by free_all_bootmem. This change was incorrect for systems where the commandline specifies more than 1 mem a