lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] WIP: HACK: LPAE, BOOTMEM and NO_BOOTMEM
From
Date
3 makes sense to me.

Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:

>( Expanding cc list, original thread is at
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1518046 )
>
>Hello,
>
>On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 06:21:24PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux
>wrote:
>> Unfortunately, that has not been true on ARM - it's very common for
>> there to be an offset on physical memory, sometimes of the order of
>> 3GB or more. This is because on reset, ARMs start executing the code
>> at physical address zero, which therefore can't be RAM - and there's
>> a desire to avoid complex switching games in hardware to temporarily
>> map ROM there instead of RAM.
>>
>> On these SoCs which Santosh is working on, the main physical memory
>> mapping is above 4GB, with just a small alias below 4GB to allow the
>> system to boot without the MMU being on, as they may have more than
>> 4GB of RAM. As I understand it, the small alias below 4GB is not
>> suitable for use as a "lowmem" mapping.
>
>Ah, okay, so the @limit which is in physical address can be over 4GB
>even for lowmem mappings and alloc_bootmem takes them in ulongs,
>urghhh....
>
>Given that still about half of the archs aren't using memblock yet, I
>think there are three options.
>
>1. Converting all bootmem interface to use physaddr_t. But that's
> what memblock is.
>
>2. Introducing new interface. Easier right now but the danger there
> is that it might end up duplicating most of alloc_bootmem()
> interface anyway and we'll have yet another variant of early mem
> allocator to enjoy.
>
>3. Make all generic code use memblock interface instead of bootmem and
> implement memblock wrapper on archs which don't use memblock yet.
> We'll probably need to sort out different combinations of
> HAVE_MEMBLOCK and NO_BOOTMEM. If this is doable, it probably is
> the most future proof way. While it adds new memblock interface
> built on top of bootmem, it would also allow removing the bootmem
> interface built on top of memblock - ie. nobootmem.c, which
> probably is what we should have done from the beginning.
>
>What do you guys think?
>
>Thanks.

--
Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-06-29 20:41    [W:0.057 / U:1.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site