Jordan Crouse wrote:
quoted text > On 27/09/07 15:47 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Jordan Crouse wrote:
>>> Breaks on the Geode - original behavior.
>>>
>>> I think that having boot_prams.e820_entries != 0 makes the kernel
>>> assume the e820 data is correct.
>>>
>> Okay, now I'm utterly baffled how 2.6.22 ever worked on this Geode,
>> because this, to the best of my reading, mimics the 2.6.22 behavior
>> exactly. DID IT REALLY, and/or did you make any kind of configuration
>> changes?
>
> I copied in a 2.6.22 kernel to see that it really did work, and it did.
> But here's the crazy part - I did a dmesg, and it looks like it
> *is* using e820 data, and it looks complete (I see the entire map -
> including the ACPI and reserved blocks way up high).
>
> So apparently it was the 2.6.22 code that was buggy, but reading it,
> I don't immediately see how.
>
Oh bugger, looks like this one might be genuinely my fault after all.
The ID check in the new code is buggy.
Can you please test this revised patch out (against current -git)?
-hpa
