On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:36 PM, ron minnich <rminn...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm getting the sense here that reasonably modern CPUs can easily handle the > 2G hole. From what I've seen, it would not cause trouble for older CPUs > because they're most likely to be in small systems that are not likely to > have more than 2G memory anyway (I'm thinking of the vortex). >
Not that I would particularly care, but was i945 able to reclaim memory from below 4GiB to above 4GiB? There used to be a fair amount of Lenovo T60/X60(s) users. Additionally, early Atom (model_106cx) might have 32-bit physical address space only without PAE. Kyösti > The 2G hole seems like a reasonable way go to. > > ron > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:01 AM Gerd Hoffmann <kra...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> > I think one can go with 2GB MMIO hole. >> >> Agreeing here. We have PAE. Non-ancient 32bit kernels should support >> and use it, for both security reasons (nox support requires PAE page >> table format) and accessing physical address space above 4G. >> >> > The PCIe > 4GB is a question, I don't >> > think Windows have good support for this. >> >> Depends on the version. Recent windows versions have no problems >> handling it. WinXP throws a BSOD though in case it finds a 64bit mmio >> window described in \_SB.PCI0._CRS ... >> >> cheers, >> Gerd >> >> >> -- >> coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org >> https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot > > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org > https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot