public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	macro@linux-mips.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com,
	eike-kernel@sf-tec.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: ioremap: fix wrong physical address handling
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:55:22 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C19AABA.8000706@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C19A2EE.2010203@zytor.com>

(2010/06/17 13:22), H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 06/16/2010 07:50 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:30:06AM +0900, Kenji Kaneshige wrote:
>>> Index: linux-2.6.34/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- linux-2.6.34.orig/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c 2010-06-15 
>>> 04:43:00.978332015 +0900
>>> +++ linux-2.6.34/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c 2010-06-15 05:32:59.291693007 
>>> +0900
>>> @@ -62,8 +62,8 @@
>>> static void __iomem *__ioremap_caller(resource_size_t phys_addr,
>>> unsigned long size, unsigned long prot_val, void *caller)
>>> {
>>> - unsigned long pfn, offset, vaddr;
>>> - resource_size_t last_addr;
>>> + unsigned long offset, vaddr;
>>> + resource_size_t pfn, last_pfn, last_addr;
>>
>> I have a hard time understanding this change. pfn is always a physical
>> address shifted by PAGE_SHIFT. So a 32-bit pfn supports up to 44-bit
>> physical addresses. Are your addresses above 44-bits?
>>
> 
> I think they might be. Kenji?

No. My addresses are in the 44-bits range (around fc000000000). So it is
not required for my problem. This change assumes that phys_addr can be
above 44-bits (up to 52-bits (and higher in the future?)).

By the way, is there linux kernel limit regarding above 44-bits physical
address in x86_32 PAE? For example, pfn above 32-bits is not supported?

#ifdef CONFIG_X86_PAE
/* 44=32+12, the limit we can fit into an unsigned long pfn */
#define __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT   44
#define __VIRTUAL_MASK_SHIFT    32

If there is 44-bits physical address limit, I think it's better to use
PHYSICAL_PAGE_MASK for masking physical address, instead of "(phys_addr
>> PAGE_SHIFT) << PAGE_SHIFT)". The PHYSICAL_PAGE_MASK would become
greater value when 44-bits physical address limit is eliminated. And
maybe we need to change phys_addr_valid() returns error if physical
address is above (1 << __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT)?

Thanks,
Kenji Kaneshige


  reply	other threads:[~2010-06-17  4:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-06-17  1:28 [BUG][PATCH 0/2 (v.2)] x86: ioremap() problem in X86_32 PAE Kenji Kaneshige
2010-06-17  1:30 ` [PATCH 1/2] x86: ioremap: fix wrong physical address handling Kenji Kaneshige
2010-06-17  2:50   ` Matthew Wilcox
2010-06-17  4:22     ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-06-17  4:55       ` Kenji Kaneshige [this message]
2010-06-17  6:03         ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-06-17  6:21           ` Kenji Kaneshige
2010-06-17  9:35           ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-06-17  9:38             ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-06-17 13:46             ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-06-18  0:32               ` Kenji Kaneshige
2010-06-18  0:22             ` Kenji Kaneshige
2010-07-09  4:24             ` Simon Horman
2010-07-09  5:33               ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-07-09  6:10                 ` Simon Horman
2010-06-17  6:28     ` Kenji Kaneshige
2010-07-09 18:31   ` [tip:x86/mm] x86, pae: Fix handling of large physical addresses in ioremap tip-bot for Kenji Kaneshige
2010-07-09 18:43     ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-06-17  1:31 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86: ioremap: fix normal ram range check Kenji Kaneshige
2010-07-09 18:31   ` [tip:x86/mm] x86, ioremap: Fix " tip-bot for Kenji Kaneshige
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-06-18  3:21 [BUG][PATCH 0/2 (v.3)] x86: ioremap() problem in X86_32 PAE Kenji Kaneshige
2010-06-18  3:22 ` [PATCH 1/2] x86: ioremap: fix wrong physical address handling Kenji Kaneshige
2010-06-18 11:07   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-06-21  1:40     ` Kenji Kaneshige

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4C19AABA.8000706@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --to=kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=eike-kernel@sf-tec.de \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=macro@linux-mips.org \
    --cc=matthew@wil.cx \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox