On 08/20/2014 01:35 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug, at 12:32:05PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:59:04AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
If we cannot relocate the kernel Image to its preferred offset of base of
On 20 August 2014 19:35, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug, at 12:32:05PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:59:04AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
If we cannot relocate the kernel Image to its
On Thu, 21 Aug, at 10:00:40AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
Hey Matt,
These patches mostly touch non-EFI specific files under arch/arm64, so
to prevent conflicts, it makes sense for the arm64 tree to take them.
OK great. Thanks guys.
--
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To
On Thu, 14 Aug, at 12:32:05PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:59:04AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
If we cannot relocate the kernel Image to its preferred offset of base of
DRAM
plus TEXT_OFFSET, instead relocate it to the lowest available 2 MB boundary
plus
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug, at 12:32:05PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:59:04AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
If we cannot relocate the kernel Image to its preferred offset of base of
DRAM
plus TEXT_OFFSET, instead
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:59:04AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
If we cannot relocate the kernel Image to its preferred offset of base of DRAM
plus TEXT_OFFSET, instead relocate it to the lowest available 2 MB boundary
plus
TEXT_OFFSET. We may lose a bit of memory at the low end, but we can
If we cannot relocate the kernel Image to its preferred offset of base of DRAM
plus TEXT_OFFSET, instead relocate it to the lowest available 2 MB boundary plus
TEXT_OFFSET. We may lose a bit of memory at the low end, but we can still
proceed normally otherwise.
Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel
