Eric W. Biederman wrote:
quoted text >>
>> | WB WT WC UC
>> ---+---------------
>> WB | WB WT WC UC
>> WT | WT WT UC UC
>> WC | WC UC WC UC
>> UC | UC UC UC UC
>>
>> With the current PAT encoding:
>>
>> WB = 00
>> WT = 01
>> WC = 10
>> UC = 11
>>
>> ... this is simply a bitwise OR. This makes sense, since one of the bits denies
>> delaying writes (WT, UC), and the other denies delaying reads (WC, UC).
>
> Almost. There is a specific case and important where MTRR UC + page table WC == WC.
>
> But yes. For ioremap where we are WB + MTRR == MTRR we need to request the
> same attributes as the e820 map, to get the attribute checking correct.
>
True; however, that shouldn't be followed for the case of conflicting
attempts at mapping.
Now, I *believe* it is safe to have some mappings UC and some WC. This
is also something to keep in mind (there are legitimate applications for
that particular form of aliasing, too.) If so, we may not want to thump
at those.
-hpa
--
unsubscribe notice To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at
http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Messages in current thread:
Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and ... , H. Peter Anvin , (Thu Jan 24, 5:36 pm)