Subject: Re: ARM port organisation (was: Re: NetBSD/hpcarm snap code)
To: Richard Earnshaw <>
From: Reinoud Zandijk <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 02/18/2001 01:21:12
Hi all,

On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > Oddly enough the only thing I can think of that pushes the 32MB limit would
> > be compiling, mozilla, and some of the window managers, eg kde2, and even
> > then couldn't you just allocate the processes 2 sections apart until you hit
> > 128 processes (gives you 128 processes of 64MB), then fill in the gaps if you
> > can (ok won't work in all cases but would cover most desktop users, certainly
> > wouldn't work for servers)
> I don't think you can do that.  All small procs must live in the 0-32Mb
> virtual memory region  (above that address and the cpu doesn't map in the
> process-specific tag when doing VA translations, so the process needs its
> own tlb tables.

:((( I really really hope that this is just a oddity... wish they had made
it full over the whole address range :(( ... that would simpify...

any ideas about the iXscale 80200 ? How to get info about it f.e. ? I
heared someone mention a document about it ... any chance of getting one

Take care,