From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:08:21 +0000
Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/1] arm64: Add support for 48-bit Physical Address
In-Reply-To: <530DF0FE.3050602@codeaurora.org>
References: <1393394310-6138-1-git-send-email-mohun106@gmail.com>
 <1393394310-6138-2-git-send-email-mohun106@gmail.com>
 <530DF0FE.3050602@codeaurora.org>
Message-ID: <20140226140821.GD7409@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 01:49:50PM +0000, Christopher Covington wrote:
> On 02/26/2014 12:58 AM, mohun106 at gmail.com wrote:
> > From: Radha Mohan Chintakuntla <rchintakuntla@cavium.com>
> > 
> > Added support for ARMv8 platforms that have 48-bit physical address
> > implemented. There is no change in the VA bits and levels of
> > translation.
> 
> Is there benefit to using build-time constants for this information? Why not
> look up the physical address range at run time, so that a single kernel binary
> could run on any system?

I agree, we don't need a Kconfig option for this, just check the
available (intermediate) physical address bits at boot-time
(ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1) and program the TCR_ELx registers accordingly.

(for whatever reason, I got the same patches in private and I replied
with the same but they haven't been changed before appearing on the
list)

-- 
Catalin