Yes I agree that Maxim's patch is correct. The original set_memory_x call for 64 bit was done correctly and the newer calls are wrong.
The 2 pages for the BIOS SD is a known value so it should be safe to use as is.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Wim Van Sebroeck [mailto:wim@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 2:38 PM
To: Linus Torvalds
Cc: Maxim Uvarov; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Mingarelli, Thomas; dann frazier
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hpwdt: clean up set_memory_x call for 32 bit
Hi Linus,
So I don't know who is supposed to be handling this (Wim?), but the
patch itself looks suspicious.
I asked Tom to look at Maxim's patch and see what it does. Tom was going to look at the patch and
I'm waiting on feedback from him first. (That's why I din't sent it upstream yet).
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Maxim Uvarov<maxim.uvarov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:- set_memory_x((unsigned long)bios32_entrypoint, (2 * PAGE_SIZE));
+ set_memory_x((unsigned long)bios32_entrypoint& PAGE_MASK, 2);
If it wasn't page-aligned to begin with, then maybe it needs three pages now?
- set_memory_x((unsigned long)cru_rom_addr, cru_length);
+ set_memory_x((unsigned long)cru_rom_addr& PAGE_MASK, cru_length>> PAGE_SHIFT);
Same here. If we align the start address down, we should fix up the
length. And should we not align the number of pages up?
In general, a "start/length" conversion to a "page/nr" model needs to be roughly
len += start& ~PAGE_MASK;
start&= PAGE_MASK;
nr_pages = (len + PAGE_SIZE - 1)>> PAGE_SHIFT;
to do things right. But I don't know where those magic numbers come
from. Maybe the "2" is already due to the code possibly traversing a
page boundary, and has already been fixed up. Somebody who knows the
driver and the requirements should take a look at this.
Valid comments indeed. Tom please take Linus comments with you when you look at the patch.
Dan: I put you in Cc: also so that you can have a look at it also.
Kind regards,
Wim.