* Kumar Gala | 2010-01-15 11:53:13 [-0600]:
>On Jan 15, 2010, at 10:41 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
>> This is take two :)
>What do you think we need for SMP support? I'm happy to test out on SMP HW
>(8572)
I've updated a comment in the last patch which was wrong. I've pushed
the updat
* wilbur.chan | 2010-01-16 20:35:50 [+0800]:
>Is it possible to avoid setting up the 1:1 mapping but to convert
>physical address into virt before relocate , like mips do?
No.
>2010/1/16 Kumar Gala :
>
>>
>> What do you think we need for SMP support? I'm happy to test out on SMP HW
>> (8572)
2010/1/16 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior :
> This is take two :)
> SMP support did not work in the first one and due to the lack of a working
> SMP machine it is still absent. I took the e500v1 problem into account and
> the result is that I now use multiple 256MiB mappings.
> The final mapping covers t
* Kumar Gala | 2010-01-15 11:53:13 [-0600]:
>On Jan 15, 2010, at 10:41 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
>> This is take two :)
>> SMP support did not work in the first one and due to the lack of a working
>> SMP machine it is still absent. I took the e500v1 problem into account and
>> the re
On Jan 15, 2010, at 10:41 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> This is take two :)
> SMP support did not work in the first one and due to the lack of a working
> SMP machine it is still absent. I took the e500v1 problem into account and
> the result is that I now use multiple 256MiB mappings.
>
This is take two :)
SMP support did not work in the first one and due to the lack of a working
SMP machine it is still absent. I took the e500v1 problem into account and
the result is that I now use multiple 256MiB mappings.
The final mapping covers the first 2GiB so the part of the highmem should
