From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:10:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:37838 "EHLO h5.dl5rb.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S1492245Ab0BBNKA (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Feb 2010 14:10:00 +0100 Received: from h5.dl5rb.org.uk (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by h5.dl5rb.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o12DAGSS014197; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 14:10:16 +0100 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by h5.dl5rb.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o12DAGVv014196; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 14:10:16 +0100 Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 14:10:16 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Dmitri Vorobiev Cc: Guenter Roeck , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] Virtual memory size detection for 64 bit MIPS CPUs Message-ID: <20100202131015.GB13987@linux-mips.org> References: <1265107061-18355-1-git-send-email-guenter.roeck@ericsson.com> <20100202130153.GB10837@linux-mips.org> <90edad821002020505x6ecfd03ejb03f316d9859b9db@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <90edad821002020505x6ecfd03ejb03f316d9859b9db@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 25848 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 03:05:49PM +0200, Dmitri Vorobiev wrote: > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Ralf Baechle wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 02:37:41AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > Pretty good, let the nitpicking start :-) > > I haven't been following this closely enough, so maybe my question is > stupid. However: will this work on SGI R5000? I'm using an Indy, so > I'm quite concerned about this CPU. The point is that your Indy right now is not working with a 64-bit kernel :) Ralf