Bug#834505: arm64 boot failure with large physical memory range

On Mon, 2016-08-22 at 11:03 +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > > I thought there was a control bit on ARMv8 too which made it cause a > > fault if the code loaded through, stored via, branched to etc an > > address with bits set between the maximum physical address bit and the > > bits

Bug#834505: arm64 boot failure with large physical memory range

X-Debbugs-CC: ard.biesheu...@linaro.org On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 02:46:06PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > I seem to remember that AArch64 has the ill-advised rule that VA bits > > > outside the range of the current page table format are ignored, so > > > presumably you're concerned that the

Bug#834505: arm64 boot failure with large physical memory range

X-Debbugs-CC: ard.biesheu...@linaro.org On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 03:04:02PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Sun, 2016-08-21 at 11:42 +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > > > You're not wrong, but unfortunately the ability to write semi-portable > > code left the planet over a decade ago. For

Bug#834505: arm64 boot failure with large physical memory range

On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 01:11:15 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 13:42 +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:50:49PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything