On 12/3/06, Segher Boessenkool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Of course, given an OS that can handle non-contiguous ram, there would > > never be a need to anything BUT size the DRB to max size. But that was > > not the case in 1999. > > There's no _need_ sure, but the result is pretty nasty: say, a DRB > is set up for 128MB, but the DIMM it covers is only 64MB; then any > access to the "high half" of the DRB aliases to the lower addresses. > Not a problem /an sich/, but it makes certain problems hard to debug.
no, because the e820 tables or whatever would set up a set of regions of memory. OS would never access the memory that does not exist. ron -- linuxbios mailing list [email protected] http://www.openbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
