[PATCH 1/1] rtas_flash_4gig
paulus at samba.org
Thu Nov 11 16:07:39 EST 2004
Jake Moilanen writes:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ibm,flash-block-version will always be
> 1 if we have ibm,update-flash-64-and-reboot (from 270 onwards), and if
> we don't have the ibm,update-flash-64-and-reboot, we will not have
> gotten to this point anyways.
The RPA doesn't say that discontiguous block list support is
required. To be properly compliant, we should check for the
ibm,flash-block-version property, even if we "know" that every machine
will have it.
> The block list pages do not have the restriction of being under 4G. They
> just have to be page aligned and not cross a LMB. Since we only
> allocate one page for every memory block using get_zeroed_page, that
> should be fine.
The block_list has to be below 4GB. The RPA doesn't actually say
whether the block_list extensions need to be below 4GB also, but I
don't see why there would be the requirement on the first block_list
but not the subsequent ones. I have sent off a query to the powers
that be to ask.
> Why do you feel we need to check if the pages overlap OF's memory?
RPA requirement R-184.108.40.206-4.
More information about the Linuxppc64-dev