Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:24:57 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposed bus address typedef. Message-ID: <20001212232457.X16205@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <200012130730.eBD7UV307046@mass.osd.bsdi.com>; from msmith@FreeBSD.ORG on Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 11:30:31PM -0800 References: <200012130730.eBD7UV307046@mass.osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG> [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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001212232457.X16205>