The following patch works for me (Note that it's cut and pasted from the
thread so the line numbers do not correspond to current versions of the
file)
Index: arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvs/linux/arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c,v
retrieving revision 1.101
diff -u -r1.101 c-r4k.c
--- arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c 7 Feb 2005 21:53:39 -0000 1.101
+++ arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c 8 Feb 2005 00:18:17 -0000
@@ -566,9 +566,21 @@
if (!cpu_has_ic_fills_f_dc) {
unsigned long addr = (unsigned long) page_address(page);
- r4k_blast_dcache_page(addr);
- if (!cpu_icache_snoops_remote_store)
- r4k_blast_scache_page(addr);
+
+ if (addr)
+ r4k_blast_dcache_page(addr);
+ else
+ r4k_blast_dcache();
+
+ if (!cpu_icache_snoops_remote_store) {
+ if (addr)
+ r4k_blast_scache_page(addr);
+ else {
+ addr = page_to_pfn(page) << PAGE_SHIFT;
+ addr = CKSEG0 + (addr & ~((1UL << 24) - 1));
+ r4k_blast_scache_page_indexed(addr);
+ }
+ }
ClearPageDcacheDirty(page);
}
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 08:43, Rojhalat Ibrahim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am not sure what patch you are actually talking about.
> In the mentioned thread there were several. Did you only apply
> the last one or all of them, i.e. did you also apply
> the patches that keep flushing the caches?
> Because those are really only a workaround and not a
> solution to the root cause of the problem.
>
> Rojhalat Ibrahim
>
>
> Alex Gonzalez wrote:
> > It's a RM9020.
> >
> > Quoting Ibrahim's,
> >
> > "With a slightly extended patch it actually works. But afterwards
> > I get a lot of Illegal instructions and Segmentation faults, where
> > there shouldn't be any. Below is the patch I used."
> >
> > And after you post an improved patch, he says,
> >
> > "I presume CKSEG is CKSEG0 in the above patch. With that it works
> > about the same as before. So do you have any clue what the problem
> > behind all that really is? Furthermore I still have all those
> > "Illegal instruction" and "Segmentation fault" messages that
> > shouldn't be there."
> >
> > The illegal instructions and segmentation faults turned to be the cpu_has_64bit_gp_regs setting. So I presume it worked for him.
> >
> > In our case, it seems to work completely OK. I am running a complete memory test over the whole 1G to be completely sure (with memtester), and I'll report the result back.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alex
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 14:14, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 10:04:47AM +0100, Alex Gonzalez wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Our target experienced a kernel panic at startup when trying to access
> >>>memory above 512MB.
> >>>
> >>>Reading the list archives I found this thread with a proposed patch:
> >>>
> >>>http://www.linux-mips.org/archives/linux-mips/2005-02/msg00115.html
> >>>
> >>>After applying the patch our target boots OK and appears to be able to
> >>>access the whole memory range without problems.
> >>>
> >>>Any idea why this patch didn't make it to the repository? Is it safe?
> >>
> >>It is - but according to Ibrahim's posting that you're pointing to it
> >>didn't solve his problem.
> >>
> >>What CPU are you using, btw?
> >>
> >> Ralf
>
