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, 2 May 2002 15:41:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 2 May 2002 15:41:01 -0400 Received: from smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.138]:5380 "EHLO smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 2 May 2002 15:40:56 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD19640.3B85BF76@linux-m68k.org> Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 21:40:48 +0200 From: Roman Zippel X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.18 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Phillips CC: Andrea Arcangeli , Ralf Baechle , Russell King , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: discontiguous memory platforms In-Reply-To: <3CD184BB.ED7F349F@linux-m68k.org> 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 Daniel Phillips wrote: > Patching the kernel how, and where? Check for example in asm-ppc/page.h the __va/__pa functions. > > Anyway, I agree with Andrea, that another mapping isn't really needed. > > Clever use of the mmu should give you almost the same result. > > We *are* making clever use of the mmu in config_nonlinear, it is doing the > nonlinear kernel virtual mapping for us. Did you have something more clever > in mind? I mean to map the memory where you need it. The physical<->virtual mapping won't be one to one, but you won't need another abstraction and the current vm is already basically able to handle it. bye, Roman