From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753153AbbCKPWw (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:22:52 -0400 Received: from smtp40.i.mail.ru ([94.100.177.100]:51644 "EHLO smtp40.i.mail.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751343AbbCKPWv (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:22:51 -0400 Message-ID: <55005DC2.1060300@list.ru> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:22:42 +0300 From: Stas Sergeev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gregory CLEMENT , Russell King - ARM Linux CC: Linux kernel , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] n_tty: use kmalloc() instead of vmalloc() to avoid crash on armada-xp References: <54FF21BE.2040506@list.ru> <550038C9.7010807@free-electrons.com> <20150311131433.GC8656@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <550058BE.3060406@list.ru> <55005B81.9020103@free-electrons.com> In-Reply-To: <55005B81.9020103@free-electrons.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam: Not detected X-Mras: Ok Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 11.03.2015 18:13, Gregory CLEMENT пишет: > On 11/03/2015 16:01, Stas Sergeev wrote: >> 11.03.2015 16:14, Russell King - ARM Linux пишет: >>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 01:44:57PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: >>>> Hi Stas, >>>> >>>> On 10/03/2015 17:54, Stas Sergeev wrote: >>>>> Hello, the patch below is needed for a successful boot on armada-xp. >>>>> >>>> I am really surprised by this patch because I used the Armada XP based >>>> board in a daily base and I never saw this issue. >>> Can you provide some details about your board - does it have 8GB of >>> memory, ranging from 0-0xf0000000, and 4G-8G ? >> I wonder about this 256Mb memory hole. > This is where the SoC registers are. OK but it seems I am loosing this region of _physical_ memory: --- [ 0.000000] memory size = 0x1f0000000 [ 0.000000] memory.cnt = 0x2 [ 0.000000] memory[0x0] [0x00000000000000-0x000000efffffff], 0xf0000000 bytes [ 0.000000] memory[0x1] [0x00000100000000-0x000001ffffffff], 0x100000000 bytes --- As you can see, memory size is 0x1f0000000 instead of 0x20000000. Why 256Mb are lost?