From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 3 May 2001 14:22:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 3 May 2001 14:22:22 -0400 Received: from panic.ohr.gatech.edu ([130.207.47.194]:47822 "HELO havoc.gtf.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 3 May 2001 14:22:13 -0400 Message-ID: <3AF1A1CB.527747F1@mandrakesoft.com> Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 14:22:03 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik Organization: MandrakeSoft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.4 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Alan Cox , Edward Spidre , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Possible PCI subsystem bug in 2.4 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds wrote: > The question is mainly _which_ power of two. > > I don't think we can round up infinitely, as that might just end up > causing us to not have any PCI space at all. Or we could end up deciding > that real PCI space is memory, and then getting a clash when a real device > tries to register its bios-allocated area that clashes with our extreme > rounding. > > I suspect it would be safe to round up to the next megabyte, possibly up > to 64MB or so. But much more would make me nervous. > > Any suggestions? Is there any chance you could simply test the bottom of PCI address space? If you could set up the x86 to trap non-DRAM read/writes temporarily, you could tell where useable DRAM area stops. -- Jeff Garzik | Game called on account of naked chick Building 1024 | MandrakeSoft |