Go ahead.
On 10.12.2013 18:15, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 05:00:28PM +0100, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder'
> Serbinenko wrote:
>>> How about the attached?
>>>
>> You need to prefix define with GRUB_EFI_ as soon as it's a global define
>> and not limited to one file. Otherwise patch
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 05:00:28PM +0100, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
wrote:
> > How about the attached?
> >
> You need to prefix define with GRUB_EFI_ as soon as it's a global define
> and not limited to one file. Otherwise patch looks good. Can you send
> corrected version?
Attached.
On 10.12.2013 15:59, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 10:17:20PM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 08:08:39PM +0100, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder'
>> Serbinenko wrote:
A simple fix would be to just stack the ifdefs, but a better one might
be to move the de
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 10:17:20PM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 08:08:39PM +0100, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder'
> Serbinenko wrote:
> > > A simple fix would be to just stack the ifdefs, but a better one might
> > > be to move the define to one of (which is currently
> > > a
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 08:43:57PM +0100, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
wrote:
> If you want to increase it to 0x you'll need patch at
> bottom of this mail. All other uses of MAX_USABLE_ADDRESS seem to be
> fine.
I can limit myself to 48 bits addressing due to current arc
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 08:08:39PM +0100, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
wrote:
> > A simple fix would be to just stack the ifdefs, but a better one might
> > be to move the define to one of (which is currently
> > a dummy for all platforms, simply including ) or types.h.
> >
> cpu/efi/me
On 09.12.2013 20:08, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> On 09.12.2013 18:30, Leif Lindholm wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The EFI memory management code contains a hard-wired limit restricting
>> physical (and virtual, all 1:1 mapped in UEFI) addresses to 32-bit.
>> While this may be the right thi
On 09.12.2013 18:30, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The EFI memory management code contains a hard-wired limit restricting
> physical (and virtual, all 1:1 mapped in UEFI) addresses to 32-bit.
> While this may be the right thing to do on x86, and hasn't caused me
> any issues on 32-bit ARM, I have
Hi,
The EFI memory management code contains a hard-wired limit restricting
physical (and virtual, all 1:1 mapped in UEFI) addresses to 32-bit.
While this may be the right thing to do on x86, and hasn't caused me
any issues on 32-bit ARM, I have received reports of at least two
upcoming 64-bit ARM
