On Friday 23 February 2001  1:42 pm, Reinoud Zandijk wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Chris Gilbert wrote:
> > Be aware that the VRAM is mapped as 4k pages so that it looks the same
> > for both DRAM and VRAM (shouldn't be that hard to tweak it to a section,
> > and would speed up screen access as it's less tlb walking when using
> > VRAM)
>
> Nope ... since the new bootloader its mapped as one or two sections of 1
> MB.... this is prolly why the screen is much faster on my machine now
> anyway. Thats also the reason why I allways claim the maximum 1Mb for
> screen memory when there is no VRAM ... or claim the 2Mb VRAM for video
> only. Thats why i removed the option to choose the amount of DRAM used.

I presume it only claims 1MB on 1MB machines?  Is it also being doubly mapped 
(I forgot to ask, and haven't had time to check)?  for some reason VRAM was 
mapped into the VM space twice, anyone know why?

> > Is this an extension to the earlier work by Mikep and myself?  (I'd
> > rather see that go in as it's smaller and then see the reworking
> > afterwards, IE as it stands current still can't boot (actually it might
> > do I've not tried since you commited the VIDC move)

> My VIDC move grows the KVM to 80Mb from 40? or so ....
>
> If this new plan fails then sure why not try your and MikeP's patches...
> if they still work OK, then why not? Thanks again for your work BTW :)

They might need tweaking against current (one problem with current actually 
moving on arm32, at one time it rarely changed so patches from 2 years back 
are still accurate :)

> Euhm... only what's "IE" ?

IE, that is, my point being that without the VM patch the kernel didn't boot, 
however I think it only gains another 16MB on top of your VIDC move.

Cheers,
Chris