From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:20:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:53496 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S6827465Ab3FURUynRvOx (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:20:54 +0200 Received: from dlelxv90.itg.ti.com ([172.17.2.17]) by devils.ext.ti.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id r5LHKSmm013142; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:20:28 -0500 Received: from DLEE70.ent.ti.com (dlee70.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.113]) by dlelxv90.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5LHKRjR030630; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:20:27 -0500 Received: from dlelxv22.itg.ti.com (172.17.1.197) by DLEE70.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.113) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.342.3; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:20:27 -0500 Received: from [158.218.103.117] (ula0393909.am.dhcp.ti.com [158.218.103.117]) by dlelxv22.itg.ti.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5LHKQ9D027789; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:20:26 -0500 Message-ID: <51C48B5A.2040404@ti.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:20:26 -0400 From: Santosh Shilimkar User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , CC: , Vineet Gupta , Russell King , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Mark Salter , Aurelien Jacquiot , James Hogan , Michal Simek , Ralf Baechle , Jonas Bonn , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , , , Chris Zankel , Max Filippov , Grant Likely , Rob Herring , Nicolas Pitre , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: Specify initrd location using 64-bit References: <1371775956-16453-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <51C4171C.9050908@linutronix.de> In-Reply-To: <51C4171C.9050908@linutronix.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 37091 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: santosh.shilimkar@ti.com Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: linux-mips X-List-ID: linux-mips List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: linux-mips On Friday 21 June 2013 05:04 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 06/21/2013 02:52 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c b/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c >> index 0a2c68f..62e2e8f 100644 >> --- a/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c >> +++ b/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c >> @@ -136,8 +136,7 @@ void __init early_init_devtree(void *params) >> } >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD >> -void __init early_init_dt_setup_initrd_arch(unsigned long start, >> - unsigned long end) >> +void __init early_init_dt_setup_initrd_arch(u64 start, u64 end) >> { >> initrd_start = (unsigned long)__va(start); >> initrd_end = (unsigned long)__va(end); > > I think it would better to go here for phys_addr_t instead of u64. This > would force you in of_flat_dt_match() to check if the value passed from > DT specifies a memory address outside of 32bit address space and the > kernel can't deal with this because its phys_addr_t is 32bit only due > to a Kconfig switch. > > For x86, the initrd has to remain in the 32bit address space so passing > the initrd in the upper range would violate the ABI. Not sure if this > is true for other archs as well (ARM obviously not). > That pretty much means phys_addr_t. It will work for me as well but in last thread from consistency with memory and reserved node, Rob insisted to keep it as u64. So before I re-spin another version, would like to here what Rob has to say considering the x86 requirement. Rob, Are you ok with phys_addr_t since your concern was about rest of the memory specific bits of the device-tree code use u64 ? Regards, Santosh From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:53496 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S6827465Ab3FURUynRvOx (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:20:54 +0200 Message-ID: <51C48B5A.2040404@ti.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:20:26 -0400 From: Santosh Shilimkar MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: Specify initrd location using 64-bit References: <1371775956-16453-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <51C4171C.9050908@linutronix.de> In-Reply-To: <51C4171C.9050908@linutronix.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , robherring2@gmail.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vineet Gupta , Russell King , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Mark Salter , Aurelien Jacquiot , James Hogan , Michal Simek , Ralf Baechle , Jonas Bonn , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , x86@kernel.org, arm@kernel.org, Chris Zankel , Max Filippov , Grant Likely , Rob Herring , Nicolas Pitre , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org Message-ID: <20130621172026.eBLXUGmLCC0KTF6HNwQmBKpm5SmgvQmu61ZG_swkX04@z> On Friday 21 June 2013 05:04 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 06/21/2013 02:52 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c b/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c >> index 0a2c68f..62e2e8f 100644 >> --- a/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c >> +++ b/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c >> @@ -136,8 +136,7 @@ void __init early_init_devtree(void *params) >> } >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD >> -void __init early_init_dt_setup_initrd_arch(unsigned long start, >> - unsigned long end) >> +void __init early_init_dt_setup_initrd_arch(u64 start, u64 end) >> { >> initrd_start = (unsigned long)__va(start); >> initrd_end = (unsigned long)__va(end); > > I think it would better to go here for phys_addr_t instead of u64. This > would force you in of_flat_dt_match() to check if the value passed from > DT specifies a memory address outside of 32bit address space and the > kernel can't deal with this because its phys_addr_t is 32bit only due > to a Kconfig switch. > > For x86, the initrd has to remain in the 32bit address space so passing > the initrd in the upper range would violate the ABI. Not sure if this > is true for other archs as well (ARM obviously not). > That pretty much means phys_addr_t. It will work for me as well but in last thread from consistency with memory and reserved node, Rob insisted to keep it as u64. So before I re-spin another version, would like to here what Rob has to say considering the x86 requirement. Rob, Are you ok with phys_addr_t since your concern was about rest of the memory specific bits of the device-tree code use u64 ? Regards, Santosh From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <51C48B5A.2040404@ti.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:20:26 -0400 From: Santosh Shilimkar MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: Specify initrd location using 64-bit References: <1371775956-16453-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <51C4171C.9050908@linutronix.de> In-Reply-To: <51C4171C.9050908@linutronix.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Cc: Nicolas Pitre , linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Catalin Marinas , Aurelien Jacquiot , Will Deacon , Max Filippov , Paul Mackerras , Jonas Bonn , Russell King , linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org, x86@kernel.org, arm@kernel.org, Mark Salter , Grant Likely , linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, James Hogan , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, Rob Herring , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Chris Zankel , Michal Simek , Vineet Gupta , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Friday 21 June 2013 05:04 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 06/21/2013 02:52 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c b/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c >> index 0a2c68f..62e2e8f 100644 >> --- a/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c >> +++ b/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c >> @@ -136,8 +136,7 @@ void __init early_init_devtree(void *params) >> } >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD >> -void __init early_init_dt_setup_initrd_arch(unsigned long start, >> - unsigned long end) >> +void __init early_init_dt_setup_initrd_arch(u64 start, u64 end) >> { >> initrd_start = (unsigned long)__va(start); >> initrd_end = (unsigned long)__va(end); > > I think it would better to go here for phys_addr_t instead of u64. This > would force you in of_flat_dt_match() to check if the value passed from > DT specifies a memory address outside of 32bit address space and the > kernel can't deal with this because its phys_addr_t is 32bit only due > to a Kconfig switch. > > For x86, the initrd has to remain in the 32bit address space so passing > the initrd in the upper range would violate the ABI. Not sure if this > is true for other archs as well (ARM obviously not). > That pretty much means phys_addr_t. It will work for me as well but in last thread from consistency with memory and reserved node, Rob insisted to keep it as u64. So before I re-spin another version, would like to here what Rob has to say considering the x86 requirement. Rob, Are you ok with phys_addr_t since your concern was about rest of the memory specific bits of the device-tree code use u64 ? Regards, Santosh From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (Santosh Shilimkar) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:20:26 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] of: Specify initrd location using 64-bit In-Reply-To: <51C4171C.9050908@linutronix.de> References: <1371775956-16453-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <51C4171C.9050908@linutronix.de> Message-ID: <51C48B5A.2040404@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Friday 21 June 2013 05:04 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 06/21/2013 02:52 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c b/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c >> index 0a2c68f..62e2e8f 100644 >> --- a/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c >> +++ b/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c >> @@ -136,8 +136,7 @@ void __init early_init_devtree(void *params) >> } >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD >> -void __init early_init_dt_setup_initrd_arch(unsigned long start, >> - unsigned long end) >> +void __init early_init_dt_setup_initrd_arch(u64 start, u64 end) >> { >> initrd_start = (unsigned long)__va(start); >> initrd_end = (unsigned long)__va(end); > > I think it would better to go here for phys_addr_t instead of u64. This > would force you in of_flat_dt_match() to check if the value passed from > DT specifies a memory address outside of 32bit address space and the > kernel can't deal with this because its phys_addr_t is 32bit only due > to a Kconfig switch. > > For x86, the initrd has to remain in the 32bit address space so passing > the initrd in the upper range would violate the ABI. Not sure if this > is true for other archs as well (ARM obviously not). > That pretty much means phys_addr_t. It will work for me as well but in last thread from consistency with memory and reserved node, Rob insisted to keep it as u64. So before I re-spin another version, would like to here what Rob has to say considering the x86 requirement. Rob, Are you ok with phys_addr_t since your concern was about rest of the memory specific bits of the device-tree code use u64 ? Regards, Santosh From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Santosh Shilimkar Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: Specify initrd location using 64-bit Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:20:26 -0400 Message-ID: <51C48B5A.2040404@ti.com> References: <1371775956-16453-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <51C4171C.9050908@linutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51C4171C.9050908@linutronix.de> Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , robherring2@gmail.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vineet Gupta , Russell King , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Mark Salter , Aurelien Jacquiot , James Hogan , Michal Simek , Ralf Baechle , Jonas Bonn , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , x86@kernel.org, arm@kernel.org, Chris Zankel , Max Filippov , Grant Likely , Rob Herring , Nicolas Pitre , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.orgli List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Friday 21 June 2013 05:04 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 06/21/2013 02:52 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c b/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c >> index 0a2c68f..62e2e8f 100644 >> --- a/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c >> +++ b/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c >> @@ -136,8 +136,7 @@ void __init early_init_devtree(void *params) >> } >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD >> -void __init early_init_dt_setup_initrd_arch(unsigned long start, >> - unsigned long end) >> +void __init early_init_dt_setup_initrd_arch(u64 start, u64 end) >> { >> initrd_start = (unsigned long)__va(start); >> initrd_end = (unsigned long)__va(end); > > I think it would better to go here for phys_addr_t instead of u64. This > would force you in of_flat_dt_match() to check if the value passed from > DT specifies a memory address outside of 32bit address space and the > kernel can't deal with this because its phys_addr_t is 32bit only due > to a Kconfig switch. > > For x86, the initrd has to remain in the 32bit address space so passing > the initrd in the upper range would violate the ABI. Not sure if this > is true for other archs as well (ARM obviously not). > That pretty much means phys_addr_t. It will work for me as well but in last thread from consistency with memory and reserved node, Rob insisted to keep it as u64. So before I re-spin another version, would like to here what Rob has to say considering the x86 requirement. Rob, Are you ok with phys_addr_t since your concern was about rest of the memory specific bits of the device-tree code use u64 ? Regards, Santosh