Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 08 Jan 2015 12:10:47 +0000 | From | Bryan O'Donoghue <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Add Isolated Memory Regions for Quark X1000 |
| |
On 07/01/15 23:45, Ong, Boon Leong wrote: >> Since BIOS and grub code both use 0x00000000 as the 'off' address I think it >> makes sense for the kernel to continue to use that address. > > Just add on top of what Daren mentioned in another mail, based on the Quark document, > the base address can start from zero. Say lo=0, hi=0, and WM & RM may be changed from default value, > 1st 1KiB will be marked as IMR. It seems to me that there is no good way to test if an IMR is 'occupied' and/or 'enabled' > since enable-bit is not available. But, what is benefit of testing against lo=0 & hi=0? The logic to calculate size will work under > lo=0 & hi=0 anway.
Hi Boon Leong.
I think it does make sense to add a check for rmask and wmask in the 'access all' state when determining if an IMR is enabled on X1000 or not.
>> My own view is that it's not really desirable and easier to debug IMRs >> generally on a platform if overlaps aren't allowed. > I do agree on the benefit listed above. Perhaps, you can add explanation here > to mention the design decision.
Will do.
| |