On Oct 7, 2007, at 1:35 PM, Dan Malek wrote:
On Oct 7, 2007, at 8:02 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
It would seem like we should set the default on 8xx PReP to
0x8000 and not allow it to be modified
For as much as this has been discussed in the past,
I don't know why the 8xx doesn't check
On Oct 7, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Can you explain (a) further -- I'm assuming the BAT mapping is 1:1
for that region?
For (b) it looks like:
* 40x, 44x, fsl-booke compare against TASK_SIZE in their software
handlers.
* 8xx still tests 0x8000
* 6xx (603)
On Oct 6, 2007, at 11:06 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
Kumar Gala writes:
In a discussion with Hollis over beer he raised the question why
TASK_SIZE is 0x8000 on ppc32.
I was wondering if anyone know why this was still the case? Seems
like we have a 1Gb whole between TASK_SIZE
On Oct 7, 2007, at 8:02 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
It would seem like we should set the default on 8xx PReP to
0x8000 and not allow it to be modified
For as much as this has been discussed in the past,
I don't know why the 8xx doesn't check KERNEL_BASE
and work properly with the options.
Can you explain (a) further -- I'm assuming the BAT mapping is 1:1
for that region?
For (b) it looks like:
* 40x, 44x, fsl-booke compare against TASK_SIZE in their software
handlers.
* 8xx still tests 0x8000
* 6xx (603) compares against KERNELBASE
It would seem like we should
In a discussion with Hollis over beer he raised the question why
TASK_SIZE is 0x8000 on ppc32.
I was wondering if anyone know why this was still the case? Seems
like we have a 1Gb whole between TASK_SIZE KERNELBASE.
- k
___
Linuxppc-dev
