From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32BFCB70AE for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2010 15:25:31 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <63799.84.105.60.153.1286166325.squirrel@gate.crashing.org> In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 06:25:25 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: use of BAT before taking over the MMU From: "Segher Boessenkool" To: "Albert Cahalan" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > On the prom boot path, with the firmware supposed to > be managing the MMU, there is a case where: > > 1. Linux changes some BAT registers. > 2. Bits 0x00000070 are/become set in the MSR. > 3. Linux takes an MMU fault. > 4. The firmware handles it. > > AFAIK, you can't expect the firmware to leave the BAT alone. > If the firmware provides mapping services by using the BAT > as a software-filled TLB, Linux's BAT changes may be lost. > > You also can't expect that your BAT changes will not conflict > with mappings that the firmware uses for itself. The firmware > might write to your new BAT mapping, relying on those virtual > addresses to be something else entirely. The PowerPC OF binding requires the firmware to save and restore the BATs on entry to / exit from the firmware. Segher