On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 04:03:05PM +0800, Wu Zhangjin wrote: > If using CKSEG0 as the ebase, CKSEG0 is defined as 0xffffffff80000000, > then we get the address: 0x97ffffff80000100, is this address ok? the address is broken TO_UNCAC doesn't work properly for CKSEG0 addresses. And that's IMHO the real bug... I'm wondering whether this set_uncached_handler() stunt is even needed. Is there a machine where CKSEG0 and CKSEG1 address different memory ? If not, we could just use the normal set_handler() function and be done with it. Thomas. -- Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessary a good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]
