From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Dec 12 23:24:59 2000 From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 12 23:24:58 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07D3C37B402; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:24:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id eBD7OvB10790; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:24:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:24:57 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Mike Smith Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposed bus address typedef. Message-ID: <20001212232457.X16205@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <200012130730.eBD7UV307046@mass.osd.bsdi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200012130730.eBD7UV307046@mass.osd.bsdi.com>; from msmith@FreeBSD.ORG on Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 11:30:31PM -0800 Sender: bright@fw.wintelcom.net Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Mike Smith [001212 23:20] wrote: > > I'd like to propose some changes to the way we represent bus addresses, to > deal with situations where u_long (IMO not a good choice to begin with) > is too small. Sure sounds like a nescessary change. > Specifically, I'd like to be able to deal with x86 systems in PAE mode, > where physical addresses are 36 bits in size. Er, don't PAE machines use segmentation registers? There's no 64bit registers are there? If that's not true, any chance on it becoming a complile time option to save cycles on non PAE machines? -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message