From: Ilan Pollak (ilanp@galileo.co.il)
Date: Tue Jul 23 2002 - 04:25:51 EDT
Hi David and thanks for the help! David McCullough wrote: >Jivin Ilan Pollak lays it down ... > >>Hi all, >>Can someone please explain this part of the function 'setup_arch' from >>linux-2.4.x/arch/armnommu/kernel/setup.c ? >> > > >Which ARM target are you building for. That will help with which settings >are causing it to fail. > I'm building for AT91 which is an ARM7TDMI, on an EB40LS board >>#if 1 >> bootmem_init(&meminfo); >>#else >> bootmap_size= init_bootmem_node( >> NODE_DATA(0), >> memory_start >> PAGE_SHIFT, >> PAGE_OFFSET >> PAGE_SHIFT, >> END_MEM >> PAGE_SHIFT); >> >> free_bootmem(memory_start, END_MEM - memory_start); >> reserve_bootmem(memory_start, bootmap_size); >>#endif >> >>if I change to #if 0 - the lower part work, and everything is cool ! >>(until my former email...) >>the problem is , that the distribution (20020701), comes with the #if 1 >>checked, then i get Kernel Bug in bootmem.c::reserve_bootmem_core, the >>starting index is bigger the ending one. >>and the next line is a BUG also. >>Can someone please tell me what's the difference ? >>thanks, >> > >I think the key here will be the value of PHYS_OFFSET. I suspect it will >need to be page aligned at least. > >Obviously some of the platforms are working and some aren't. Look at >DRAM_BASE and DRAM_SIZE (MEM_END) and also at PHYS_OFFSET to see the >differences. > checked those too, they seem fine to me: DRAM_BASE = 0x02000000; DRAM_SIZE = 0x00200000; PHYS_OFFSET (== PAGE_OFFSET) = 0x02000000 but then again, something must go wrong there ... What's the price of choosing the other path (the '#if 0' way) ? thanks, ilan > >I believe there was something posted to the list on thsi topic quite a >while back which resulted in the patch from "if 0" to "if 1". You might >be able to find a few more details tehre, > >Cheers, >Davidm > sorry, couldn't find it, any link? This message resent by the uclinux-dev@uclinux.org list server http://www.uClinux.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 19 2002 - 13:21:35 EDT