search for: nouveau_bios_shadow_pramin

...1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/bios/base.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/bios/base.c index e9df94f..291adb6 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/bios/base.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/bios/base.c @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ nouveau_bios_shadow_pramin(struct nouveau_bios *bios) return; } - addr = (u64)(addr >> 8) << 8; + addr = (u64)(addr & 0xffffff00) << 8; if (!addr) { addr = (u64)nv_rd32(bios, 0x001700) << 16; addr += 0xf0000; -- 1.9.0

...> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/bios/base.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/bios/base.c > index e9df94f..291adb6 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/bios/base.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/bios/base.c > @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ nouveau_bios_shadow_pramin(struct nouveau_bios *bios) > return; > } > > - addr = (u64)(addr >> 8) << 8; > + addr = (u64)(addr & 0xffffff00) << 8; I just noticed that "(u64)" is redundant here. Can it be removed...

...f the code from the file base.c if (nv_rd08(bios, 0x700000) != 0x55 || nv_rd08(bios, 0x700001) != 0xaa) { It means that the address reading of 0x700000 results the kernel crash. Why does it happen? The result of the address reading of 0x619f04 is shown for the information. static void nouveau_bios_shadow_pramin(struct nouveau_bios *bios) { struct nouveau_device *device = nv_device(bios); u32 bar0 = 0; int i; unsigned int tmp_val; if (device->card_type >= NV_50) { u64 addr = (u64)(nv_rd32(bios, 0x619f04) & 0xffffff00) << 8; if (!addr) { addr...