From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 14:48:18 +0100 Subject: Memory size unaligned to section boundary In-Reply-To: <554E0DC8.4060401@redhat.com> References: <20150506101104.GD2067@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20150506105102.GB5382@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20150506113503.GT2067@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <554E0DC8.4060401@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20150509134818.GP2067@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 03:38:16PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Ok, so does that mean that Mark's original patch: > > ---->8---- > diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c > index 4e6ef89..2ea13f0 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c > @@ -1125,9 +1125,9 @@ void __init sanity_check_meminfo(void) > * occurs before any free memory is mapped. > */ > if (!memblock_limit) { > - if (!IS_ALIGNED(block_start, SECTION_SIZE)) > + if (!IS_ALIGNED(block_start, PMD_SIZE)) > memblock_limit = block_start; > - else if (!IS_ALIGNED(block_end, SECTION_SIZE)) > + else if (!IS_ALIGNED(block_end, PMD_SIZE)) > memblock_limit = arm_lowmem_limit; > } > > @@ -1142,7 +1142,7 @@ void __init sanity_check_meminfo(void) > * last full section, which should be mapped. > */ > if (memblock_limit) > - memblock_limit = round_down(memblock_limit, SECTION_SIZE); > + memblock_limit = round_down(memblock_limit, PMD_SIZE); > if (!memblock_limit) > memblock_limit = arm_lowmem_limit; > > > Is good, or do we only need to have the last chunk of this patch ? That should do it, thanks. -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.