From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Mon, 08 Jan 2007 17:43:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.187]:3897 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S28574360AbXAHRmt (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2007 17:42:49 +0000 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l24so8744174nfc for ; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 09:42:49 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:x-mailer:from; b=hecV1tXDhT1/GmTMKWLVJcZs0yN9klVD22hrdTAiHkJRsvinANm1vypNTGOfHG1kVimE/5QsZCBFQDBMm3naHqTrtBn5LSxroL5ibX+CZrC5YEuWOTn1/otQq2lb7K0o1gQO6bHijKze44KqK7HUQ8fETUz7Yk1wzLBLsG7L1tg= Received: by 10.49.107.8 with SMTP id j8mr17910946nfm.1168278166576; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 09:42:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from spoutnik.innova-card.com ( [81.252.61.1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id k23sm107815220nfc.2007.01.08.09.42.45; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 09:42:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by spoutnik.innova-card.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 806C723F76A; Mon, 8 Jan 2007 18:44:52 +0100 (CET) To: ralf@linux-mips.org Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: [PATCH 0/2] FLATMEM: allow memory to start at pfn != 0 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 18:44:50 +0100 Message-Id: <11682782923799-git-send-email-fbuihuu@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.4.4.3.ge6d4 From: Franck Bui-Huu 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: 13563 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: vagabon.xyz@gmail.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips Ralf, I'm resending this patchset with almost no change. The only one made is in patch #1 in paging_init() when CONFIG_ISA is set. I know that you encountered some issues when using malta config. It seems that this platform uses HIGHMEM but no ISA config. So this new patchset shouldn't fix anything for you, but I need more info to debug it. Could you give a try to patch #1 _only_ and give me the console output ? That would be really nice. Thanks Franck