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

[Ong, Boon Leong]

>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 
--
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/