Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/2] powerpc: 44x doesn't need G set everywhere

2008-12-10 Thread Josh Boyer
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 07:03:57 +1100 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > We still leave G=1 on the linear mapping for now, we need to > > > stop over-mapping RAM to be able to remove it. > > > > Hm. Over-mapping it has the nice advantage that we use as few pinned > > TLB ent

Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/2] powerpc: 44x doesn't need G set everywhere

2008-12-10 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> > We still leave G=1 on the linear mapping for now, we need to > > stop over-mapping RAM to be able to remove it. > > Hm. Over-mapping it has the nice advantage that we use as few pinned > TLB entries as possible. For 440x6 cores with more than 256 MiB of > DRAM, you could theoretically use a

Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/2] powerpc: 44x doesn't need G set everywhere

2008-12-10 Thread Josh Boyer
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:50:50 +1100 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After discussing with chip designers, it appears that it's not > necessary to set G everywhere on 440 cores. The various core > errata related to prefetch should be sorted out by firmware by > disabling icache p

[RFC/PATCH 2/2] powerpc: 44x doesn't need G set everywhere

2008-12-09 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt
After discussing with chip designers, it appears that it's not necessary to set G everywhere on 440 cores. The various core errata related to prefetch should be sorted out by firmware by disabling icache prefetching in CCR0. We add the workaround to the kernel however just in case ld firmwares