From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f200.google.com (mail-wr0-f200.google.com [209.85.128.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B22F6B0005 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 18:32:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wr0-f200.google.com with SMTP id c37so2622156wra.5 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 15:32:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net. [212.227.15.19]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h184si40937wma.121.2018.02.21.15.32.02 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 21 Feb 2018 15:32:03 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:31:58 +0100 From: Jonathan =?utf-8?Q?Neusch=C3=A4fer?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] DISCONTIGMEM support for PPC32 Message-ID: <20180221233158.4rnxsyxffhevtj44@latitude> References: <20180220161424.5421-1-j.neuschaefer@gmx.net> <193a407d-e6b8-9e29-af47-3d401b6414a0@c-s.fr> <20180221144240.pfu2run3pixt3pzo@latitude> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3wousgr6cvagsioq" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Christophe LEROY Cc: Jonathan =?utf-8?Q?Neusch=C3=A4fer?= , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Joel Stanley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org --3wousgr6cvagsioq Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 04:02:25PM +0100, Christophe LEROY wrote: [...] > > > My question might me stupid, as I don't know PCC64 in deep, but when = looking > > > at page_is_ram() in arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c, I have the feeling the PPC= 64 > > > implements ram by blocks. Isn't it what you are trying to achieve ? W= ouldn't > > > it be feasible to map to what's done in PPC64 for PPC32 ? > >=20 > > Using page_is_ram in __ioremap_caller and the same memblock-based > > approach that's used on PPC64 on PPC32 *should* work, but I think due to > > the following line in initmem_init, it won't: > >=20 > > memblock_set_node(0, (phys_addr_t)ULLONG_MAX, &memblock.memory, 0); >=20 > Can't we just fix that ? Turns out I was completely wrong about this. memblock_set_node as called above only assigns all memory to node 0 and merges *adjacent* memblocks. It doesn't merge the memblocks on the Wii, which are far apart. So now I actually have a working patchset (coming soon), that's a good deal shorter than this patchset, and hopefully won't break CONFIG_HIGHMEM in the same way. Thanks for your input! :) Jonathan Neusch=C3=A4fer --3wousgr6cvagsioq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAABAgAGBQJajgFjAAoJEAgwRJqO81/bDAUP+gPIvPGu0J/u2uqZfNr27T+4 sh45TNrfe52W5evpflDWMx4ZUq2v6Y/sug9fvebmiLJ5t3oMPzTWxNxIxB8q4Fn3 qI5QIyZGpsr+8z5TH2Ww4givs3W5c24Ze4ysbsqefJJZMJzkMM+Ao3cGcWD686/C rTn6K27WxO80xhTlf/5jtdjf2vBQd0aUSN0BgtlsJElYuXXUN7qlsF4apLTcHsVi itdOxGqajwn+vBlcp8e7i86DnOaWOX2u09TDGgUHL10hnLTzToWZjeI8UUBtdiOY 9WVT+69J1FnyLPjHnBl+ry3Z3BBJWIWYWKMtUdUSLT90V3VPWfFUnCobX1E+TQ+C QmP6romqvvxBsJLQQ1MPxCRDOxFmMfNulWQNYwIM+6T4HBBMHQ5mi/7QYRBOxVef NI/cuiXExZ6dE2gx48XfFDbferQ3ah9IUSeu3JUIkZ5457KPQVfc0a/t/AJcEmn4 WfWY+CPHs0RoD73KgqskxC/NR3BDHCPGPfMwMlkBuPjhREgLmYHwmCpDjgUXST+2 gagoCx4q0CYYC7VPgq/UDJBnaOyiK/znpr6EyJ0HBBeUd2HR/uVKeGD5GAiSV7hu 9BlVNc6XMUUp/q3H6TcJqI2UUt8LMvBhwQ1p9B7xCtJRxgiys3eCSrtIsgJA0d5w +c2s4pf5ExFkCl1Mp04x =GpyF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --3wousgr6cvagsioq-- -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org