Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote on 2010/11/24 22:45:11: > > Dear Joakim Tjernlund, > > In message > <of3286d177.b2b7747d-onc12577e5.00769a1f-c12577e5.0076b...@transmode.se> you > wrote: > > > > Played a little with this but it seems like two BATs cannot overlap? > > IIRC they can, but the first (lower register numbers) mapping wins.
This text from PPC PEM suggests otherwise: If a BAT entry is not valid for a given access, it does not participate in address translation for that access. Two BAT entries may not map an overlapping effective address range and be valid at the same time. Entries that have complementary settings of V[s] and V[p] may map overlapping effective address blocks. Complementary settings would be as follows: BAT entry A: Vs = 1, Vp = 0 BAT entry B: Vs = 0, Vp = 1 > > Best regards, > > Wolfgang Denk PS. Are you planning to apply some of my earlier patches(not this RFC series) or are you waiting for Freescale to Ack/pick up? So far nobody has said anything. Jocke _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
