From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756784AbbAHOwb (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2015 09:52:31 -0500 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:32917 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751569AbbAHOw3 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2015 09:52:29 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,691,1406617200"; d="scan'208";a="509326745" From: "Ong, Boon Leong" To: "Bryan O'Donoghue" CC: "tglx@linutronix.de" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "hpa@zytor.com" , "x86@kernel.org" , "platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Darren Hart , "andy.shevchenko@gmail.com" Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Add Isolated Memory Regions for Quark X1000 Thread-Topic: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Add Isolated Memory Regions for Quark X1000 Thread-Index: AQHQI41CoFze/rj2YEaQrKcsZxtS4pyyOcYAgABmfYCAAr8x0IAAS5qAgACxhlA= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 14:52:24 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1419873783-5161-1-git-send-email-pure.logic@nexus-software.ie> <1419873783-5161-2-git-send-email-pure.logic@nexus-software.ie> <20150106073634.GB59754@vmdeb7> <54ABE67B.1070706@nexus-software.ie> <54AE73C7.90009@nexus-software.ie> In-Reply-To: <54AE73C7.90009@nexus-software.ie> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.30.20.206] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >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