On PowerPC it's very normal to not support all of the physical
RAM in real mode.
Oh? Are you referring to real mode limit, or 32-bit
implementations with
more than 32 address lines, or something else?
The former.
Okay. In that case, the hypervisor can usually access all of physical
On 29.06.2010, at 09:32, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On PowerPC it's very normal to not support all of the physical RAM in real
mode.
Oh? Are you referring to real mode limit, or 32-bit implementations with
more than 32 address lines, or something else?
The former.
Okay. In that
Also, it seems you construct the physical address by masking out
bits from
the effective address. Most implementations will trap or
machine check if
you address outside of physical address space, instead.
Well the only case where I remember to have hit a real RMO case
is on the PS3 -
On 29.06.2010, at 09:52, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Also, it seems you construct the physical address by masking out bits from
the effective address. Most implementations will trap or machine check if
you address outside of physical address space, instead.
Well the only case where I
Am 26.06.2010 um 18:52 schrieb Segher Boessenkool seg...@kernel.crashing.org
:
On PowerPC it's very normal to not support all of the physical RAM
in real mode.
Oh? Are you referring to real mode limit, or 32-bit
implementations with
more than 32 address lines, or something else?
The
On PowerPC it's very normal to not support all of the physical RAM
in real mode.
Oh? Are you referring to real mode limit, or 32-bit
implementations with
more than 32 address lines, or something else?
Either way, RMO is a really bad name for this, since that name is
already
used for a
On PowerPC it's very normal to not support all of the physical RAM in real mode.
To check if we're matching on the shared page or not, we need to know the limits
so we can restrain ourselves to that range.
So let's make it a define instead of open-coding it. And while at it, let's also
increase
