Re: [PATCH 01/14] sh: Sprinkle __uses_jump_to_uncached

[Matt Fleming <matt@console-pimps.org>]

On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 11:37:24AM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 10:22:21PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > Fix some callers of jump_to_uncached() and back_to_cached() that were
> > not annotated with __uses_jump_to_uncached.
> 
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 10:22:22PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > If we fail to allocate a PMB entry in pmb_remap() we must remember to
> > clear and free any PMB entries that we may have previously allocated,
> > e.g. if we were allocating a multiple entry mapping.
> 
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 10:22:27PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > We should favour PMB mappings when the physical address cannot be
> > reached with 29-bits.
> 
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 10:22:34PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > Currently, we've got the less than ideal situation where if we need to
> > allocate a 256MB mapping we'll allocate four entries like so,
> > 
> > 	 entry 1: 128MB
> > 	 entry 2:  64MB
> > 	 entry 3:  16MB
> > 	 entry 4:  16MB
> > 
> > This is because as we execute the loop in pmb_remap() we will
> > progressively try mapping the remaining address space with smaller and
> > smaller sizes. This isn't good because the size we use on one iteration
> > may be the perfect size to use on the next iteration, for instance when
> > the initial size is divisible by one of the PMB mapping sizes.
> > 
> > With this patch, we now only need two entries in the PMB to map 256MB of
> > address space,
> > 
> > 	  entry 1: 128MB
> > 	  entry 2: 128MB
> > 
> 
> These are all good fixups that are fairly orthogonal to the rest of the
> changes, so I've merged these as fixups for 2.6.32. The others we'll deal
> with incrementally once I open the tree for 2.6.33 changes.

Sounds good. Cheers, Paul.