Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Add Isolated Memory Regions for Quark X1000

[Bryan O'Donoghue]

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.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/