From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Received: from mail-in-01.arcor-online.net (mail-in-02.arcor-online.net
	[151.189.21.42])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "mx.arcor.de",
	Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK))
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E2567B22
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 18:44:54 +1000 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <20060922012408.GA13820@mag.az.mvista.com>
References: <17680.30367.157642.674242@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
	<20060920012042.GA28489@mag.az.mvista.com>
	<1158721828.3043.13.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org>
	<A6FD3E5E-94EF-4E12-A0FB-8700F0DF8151@kernel.crashing.org>
	<1158787957.6002.307.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<20060920215738.GC24809@mag.az.mvista.com>
	<C2AFCB31-CFC2-4B0E-ADAE-380A612D1053@kernel.crashing.org>
	<20060921133707.GA29137@gate.crashing.org>
	<1CA5168F-9ECA-4AA2-92AE-F86579245855@kernel.crashing.org>
	<20060922012408.GA13820@mag.az.mvista.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <9F654F4A-B344-4374-8BDC-77FB0DDAFDCC@kernel.crashing.org>
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Start arch/powerpc/boot code reorganization
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:43:42 +0200
To: Mark A. Greer <mgreer@mvista.com>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, Matt Porter <mporter@embeddedalley.com>,
	linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

>> How about you check whether the "64-bit" property exists in the CPU
>> nodes?
>
> That seemed like the right thing until I realized, its still  
> specifying
> the physical size, not the virtual size.

No, it says that the CPU supports the full PowerPC arch, not just the
32-bit subset.  Every 64-bit PowerPC has a 64-bit effective address,
every 32-bit PowerPC has a 32-bit effective address.  There's no way
around that unless you change most of the instruction set ;-)


Segher