On 10.11.2016 10:57, Nathan Rossi wrote:
> On 10 November 2016 at 19:33, Nathan Rossi wrote:
>> On 10 November 2016 at 18:41, Michal Simek wrote:
>>> + Nathan
>>>
>>> 2016-10-31 17:26 GMT+01:00 Kyle Roeschley :
On Zynq, we haven't been reserving the correct amount of DMA-incapable
On 10 November 2016 at 19:33, Nathan Rossi wrote:
> On 10 November 2016 at 18:41, Michal Simek wrote:
>> + Nathan
>>
>> 2016-10-31 17:26 GMT+01:00 Kyle Roeschley :
>>>
>>> On Zynq, we haven't been reserving the correct amount of DMA-incapable
>>> RAM to keep DMA away from it (per the Zynq TRM Sec
On 10 November 2016 at 18:41, Michal Simek wrote:
> + Nathan
>
> 2016-10-31 17:26 GMT+01:00 Kyle Roeschley :
>>
>> On Zynq, we haven't been reserving the correct amount of DMA-incapable
>> RAM to keep DMA away from it (per the Zynq TRM Section 4.1, it should be
>> the first 512k). In older kernels
On Zynq, we haven't been reserving the correct amount of DMA-incapable
RAM to keep DMA away from it (per the Zynq TRM Section 4.1, it should be
the first 512k). In older kernels, this was masked by the
memblock_reserve call in arm_memblock_init(). Now, reserve the correct
amount excplicitly rather
4 matches
Mail list logo