Re: [U-Boot] Need input: Use Virtual address in commands; add translation/physical

2008-11-27 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Andrew, In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > What about suicidal things like accessing a bus region that hangs the > machine, hitting the one address that resets the whole thing? Yes, I > know that's broken design, but hardware like that exists, and is not > going to change because

Re: [U-Boot] Need input: Use Virtual address in commands; add translation/physical

2008-11-27 Thread Andrew Dyer
>> I would love to see memory addresses get parsed through a common >> routine - that would allow easily hooking in an arch/platform specific >> routine to filter out addresses that should be avoided. > > U-Boot is not supposed to do any such filtering. > > "UNIX was not designed to stop you from d

Re: [U-Boot] Need input: Use Virtual address in commands; add translation/physical

2008-11-26 Thread Stefan Roese
Hi Becky, On Wednesday 26 November 2008, Becky Bruce wrote: > We're going to be seeing more platforms with larger physical addresses > (PA) than virtual addresses (VA) supported in u-boot, and this kind of > ruins the current assumption inherent in much of u-boot that VA == > PA. On ppc, we've be

Re: [U-Boot] Need input: Use Virtual address in commands; add translation/physical

2008-11-26 Thread Jerry Van Baren
Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Jerry, > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: >> How would xlat know which direction it is to translate? > > From the argument that is passed to it: > > xlat 1234 > or > xlat 0x1234 > > are taken as VA's (see discussion about default address > inte

Re: [U-Boot] Need input: Use Virtual address in commands; add translation/physical

2008-11-26 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Andrew, In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > > - Initially, a xlat (or insert better name here) command-line command > > will be added to give you a PA given a VA, and vice-versa. > > virt_to_phys and phys_to_virt? C'me on, we actually have to *type* that command every now and the

Re: [U-Boot] Need input: Use Virtual address in commands; add translation/physical

2008-11-26 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Jerry, In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > How would xlat know which direction it is to translate? >From the argument that is passed to it: xlat 1234 or xlat 0x1234 are taken as VA's (see discussion about default address interpretation), so "xlat" will print the

Re: [U-Boot] Need input: Use Virtual address in commands; add translation/physical

2008-11-26 Thread Andrew Dyer
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Becky Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Folks, > > We're going to be seeing more platforms with larger physical addresses > (PA) than virtual addresses (VA) supported in u-boot, and this kind of > ruins the current assumption inherent in much of u-boot that VA == >

Re: [U-Boot] Need input: Use Virtual address in commands; add translation/physical

2008-11-26 Thread Jerry Van Baren
Hi Becky, Becky Bruce wrote: > Folks, > > We're going to be seeing more platforms with larger physical addresses > (PA) than virtual addresses (VA) supported in u-boot, and this kind of > ruins the current assumption inherent in much of u-boot that VA == > PA. On ppc, we've begin implement

[U-Boot] Need input: Use Virtual address in commands; add translation/physical

2008-11-26 Thread Becky Bruce
Folks, We're going to be seeing more platforms with larger physical addresses (PA) than virtual addresses (VA) supported in u-boot, and this kind of ruins the current assumption inherent in much of u-boot that VA == PA. On ppc, we've begin implementing the ability to actually translate VA