On 10/30/08 7:03 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:41:14 -0700 > Grant Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> If the size of RAM is not an exact power of two, we may not have >> covered RAM in its entirety with large 16 and 4 MiB >> pages. Consequently, restrict the top end of RAM currently allocable >> by updating '__initial_memory_limit_addr' so that calls to the LMB to >> allocate PTEs for "tail" coverage with normal-sized pages (or other >> reasons) do not attempt to allocate outside the allowed range. > > Nice catch. I was looking to see if 44x had the same problem, but I > don't think it does because we simply over-map DRAM there. Does that > seem correct to you, or am I missing something on 44x that would cause > this same problem?
Josh, Because I do not have 44x hardware to validate against and because this particular fix was localized to the 40x path, I did not take the time to walk through the 44x path. Regards, Grant _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
