On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 5:19 PM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > I suppose we already had a discussion of why this property
> > is undocumented? Or should we document it? Obviously
> > it is already in widespread use.
>
> This comes from commit 51975db0b7333cf3 ("of/flattree: merge
>
Hi Linus,
CC Rob, Grant, Michael, Heinrich, DT
On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 12:57 AM Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 2:01 PM Geert Uytterhoeven
> wrote:
> > Currently, the start address of physical memory is obtained by masking
> > the program counter with a fixed mask of 0xf800.
04.01.2021 16:01, Geert Uytterhoeven пишет:
> Currently, the start address of physical memory is obtained by masking
> the program counter with a fixed mask of 0xf800. This mask value
> was chosen as a balance between the requirements of different platforms.
> However, this does require that
On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 2:01 PM Geert Uytterhoeven
wrote:
> Currently, the start address of physical memory is obtained by masking
> the program counter with a fixed mask of 0xf800. This mask value
> was chosen as a balance between the requirements of different platforms.
> However, this
Hi Marek,
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 11:36 AM Marek Szyprowski
wrote:
> On 04.01.2021 14:01, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Currently, the start address of physical memory is obtained by masking
> > the program counter with a fixed mask of 0xf800. This mask value
> > was chosen as a balance
Hi Geert,
On 04.01.2021 14:01, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Currently, the start address of physical memory is obtained by masking
> the program counter with a fixed mask of 0xf800. This mask value
> was chosen as a balance between the requirements of different platforms.
> However, this does
Currently, the start address of physical memory is obtained by masking
the program counter with a fixed mask of 0xf800. This mask value
was chosen as a balance between the requirements of different platforms.
However, this does require that the start address of physical memory is
a multiple
7 matches
Mail list logo