Messages in this thread | | | From | "Ong, Boon Leong" <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Add Isolated Memory Regions for Quark X1000 | Date | Thu, 8 Jan 2015 14:52:24 +0000 |
| |
>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
Ya, checking against rmask & wmask whether they have been changed from default stage would help here. Thanks
| |