On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 02:47:38PM -0500, Jack Steiner wrote: > On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 05:48:43PM +0900, Horms wrote: > > There seems to be no reason to map the PAL code into memory if > > physical calls are going to be made. > > > If you don't map PAL, I assume that all PAL calls are going to be made in > physical addressing mode. However, I don't see any code that actually forces > PAL calls to be made in physical addressing mode. Is that your intent? > Don't you also need to save the PAL start address as a physical address. > See the call to ia64_pal_handler_init(). Thanks. On furtuther investigation I think that this patch is bogus. I will remove it from the series. > In addition, it looks like slave cpus still call efi_map_pal_code() > to map PAL - see start_secondary(). Just for the record, that itself is easy enough to get around by checking for efi.mapped in efi_map_pal_code() or start_secondary(). -- Horms H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/ W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|