On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 08:33:16 +1100 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 08:41 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 08:55:02AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > >On Sat, 2008-11-01 at 07:30 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > >> > > >> That is on purpose. The chip has an errata that causes badness if > > >> you use the last XX bytes of DRAM. I forget exactly what XX is, but > > >> we just remove the last page. > > > > > >Doing that from the device-tree is very hairy tho... you end up with > > >informations in there that aren't aligned etc... oh well. > > > > What? -ENOTVERBOSEENOUGH. > > > > I don't see how this is really different from U-Boot just passing in > > a smaller memory size in the old arch/ppc world. (And I think U-Boot > > will actually fixup the device tree in a similar manner itself these > > days.) So if there are problems with this, please do tell. > > Is it cropping the memory nodes or using the reserve map ? Cropping the size of the memory node. That was simplest to do from the cuboot wrapper at the time. If marking it reserved via a reserve map is more elegant and correct, we could do that. But I will still like to know what about the other way is hairy please. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
