From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:23:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:48820 "EHLO linux-mips.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S6827823Ab3FZQXF6OLc3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:23:05 +0200 Received: from scotty.linux-mips.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by scotty.linux-mips.net (8.14.5/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5QGN4q2013847; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:23:04 +0200 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by scotty.linux-mips.net (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id r5QGN2CA013846; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:23:02 +0200 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:23:02 +0200 From: Ralf Baechle To: Leonid Yegoshin Cc: "Steven J. Hill" , "linux-mips@linux-mips.org" , Florian Fainelli Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Revert "MIPS: make CAC_ADDR and UNCAC_ADDR account for PHYS_OFFSET" Message-ID: <20130626162302.GE7171@linux-mips.org> References: <1371742590-10138-1-git-send-email-Steven.Hill@imgtec.com> <20130626145234.GB7171@linux-mips.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 37141 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: linux-mips X-List-ID: linux-mips List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: linux-mips On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 03:43:35PM +0000, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > This is a precursor for EVA specs implementation on Aptiv cores. > > EVA has different virtual address sets for kernel and user space and it can use memory on different physical address location. For exam, on Malta it can use a natural 0x80000000, one our customer put memory into 0x40000000 etc. Hmm... Any significant reduction below 2GB sounds like opening a can of worms with address space layout assumption in some application code. I guess they were desperately looking to increase kernel memory, highmem didn't fit the bill nor going 64 bit so this was the solution? Ralf