In article <01030914514500.00460@pinky.paradox.demon.co.uk> you write:
>On Thursday 08 March 2001 11:15 am, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> Well the SA TRM definitely says that two banks aren't necessary iff the
>> memory is unused for any other purpose.  (maybe this was a hack to work
>> around not draining the write buffers properly :-)  I've been using this
>> code for ~6 months in my own kernel and not seen any ill effects from it.
>
>just out of curiosity (and cos it's a mad idea :), would it be pheasible to 
>use any constant block of 16k?  eg the first 16k of the kernel

Have you looked at the code?  It goes:

_C_LABEL(sa110_cache_clean_addr):
        .word   0xf0000000
        .global _C_LABEL(sa110_cache_clean_size)
_C_LABEL(sa110_cache_clean_size):
        .word   0x00008000

That looks like the first 32k (since this is the old version) of the kernel
to me.  It might be a little better if it used a preprocessor constant
there, though, since it won't behave quite as expected on (e.g.) hpcarm.

-- 
Ben Harris                                                   <bjh21@netbsd.org>
Portmaster, NetBSD/arm26               <URL:http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/arm26/>