From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 12:35:59 +0100 To: linuxppc-dev , Geert Uytterhoeven From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: grackle, patches, MMU, ... Message-Id: <19981230123559.019295@mail.mipsys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Wed, Dec 30, 1998, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >Grackle is the host bridge, right? In that case it's always device 0 / bus 0. Yep. >But for user space, we're still stuck with a normal mapping. And there speed >is >more important, I think, since most people (R5 installers? :-) run X and don't >use the text console that much. Yes, having a way to use BATs for large user-space mappings would be a benefit for framebuffer and also for other devices like frame grabbers. I'm not familiar enough yet with the user-side MM stuff to implement this now, but if no one does it, I'll try it as soon as I have undersood enough things there. BTW. Geert: Since you are working on m68k too, do you know if linux-m68k uses the same adb code as linux-ppc ? I'm working on a new adb.c/.h, which cleans up things (especially "hook-like" entry points to the controller by exporting functions for registering hardware controllers (via a structure with function pointers)) and for registering devices (also a structure with function pointers with more entrypoint to allow proper re-probing when a bus reset is done for example) and I would like to know if there are risk I break m68k while doing so. Currently, adb.c/.h is in arch/ppc but I don't know if vger is the main repository for m68k too or not -- E-Mail: BenH. Web : [[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]] [[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to Cc linuxppc-dev if your ]] [[ reply is of general interest. To unsubscribe from linuxppc-dev, send ]] [[ the message 'unsubscribe' to linuxppc-dev-request@lists.linuxppc.org ]]