On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 06:54 +0100, leroy christophe wrote: > Le 16/12/2013 23:57, Scott Wood a écrit : > > On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 00:36 +0100, leroy christophe wrote: > >> Le 11/12/2013 00:18, Scott Wood a écrit : > >>> There wasn't previously an ifdef specifically around the setting of > >>> SPRN_MD_CTR. That's new. There was an ifdef around the entire block, > >>> which has gone away because you are now trying to map more than 8M > >>> regardless of CONFIG_PIN_TLB, but that has nothing to do with whether > >>> there should be an ifdef around SPRN_MD_CTR. > >>> > >>> > >> Euh, ok, but then we have to fix it in the whole function, not only in > >> this block. Do you think it is worth doing it ? > > Fix what in the whole function? I was asking what harm there would be > > if you just remove all the CONFIG_PIN_TLB ifdefs except around the > > actual RSV4I setting -- do we really care what value goes in MD_CTR for > > the non-pinned case, as long as it's different for each entry? > > > > > MD_CTR is decremented after each entry added. > However, the function populates entry 28, then 29, then 30, then 31. At > the end MD_CTR has then value 30, ready to overide entry 30 then 29 then > 28 then 27 ..... > > So I will remove all the CONFIG_PIN_TLB, but I'll also have to fix the > value set in MD_CTR to start from 31, won't I ?
OK, so the answer is that we rely on autodecrement avoiding entries over 28 in the CONFIG_PIN_TLB case. Leave the ifdefs, then. > Do you have any comment/recommendation on my tentative v3 patch where I > have tried to implement based on the use of r7 as you recommended ? I haven't reviewed it yet. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
