From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 27 Jun 2013 22:54:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-gh0-f169.google.com ([209.85.160.169]:64156 "EHLO mail-gh0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S6835042Ab3F0Uyb0I3c3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jun 2013 22:54:31 +0200 Received: by mail-gh0-f169.google.com with SMTP id r1so498275ghr.14 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 13:54:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=coBh83tmXRRYEu/q9W3A0S0mbu3vwx65za4t22T9riM=; b=sOi35S2zsgSkZZrn/8cxjKo7S0v9fdPA/t2pFhkC09k7z0lrWpGtGATGOIQhzjlBuz /G8JpSjKZQdAj85krM+ZNrl1lM5CSIyyt7HikgT5ciYBXgLmgv8YGMD2gzqn+j6tUF80 AXbACv6Y6iuiYaYZ6pLwzRbLsuBomfdXveHIzYvuhAf8owGeXZguPBqvgeR4IThxNZub jMbMRTjen4E0mVlr0fJqk9YH90OfL+wOitjfhvGS/Wz7zw8NHAusQ0Nl8OU78j7asfcF iuc32fyWC7gI7jCwAw2PDTxDGTvj/LW7aiX6IzXXFKqPXCMrQ0YolYlsP/mSXO7KCl4Q 7eTg== X-Received: by 10.236.5.142 with SMTP id 14mr5646913yhl.207.1372366464880; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 13:54:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.10.10.90] ([173.226.190.126]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v68sm6620540yhn.22.2013.06.27.13.54.22 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 27 Jun 2013 13:54:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51CCA67C.2010803@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:54:20 -0500 From: Rob Herring User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Santosh Shilimkar CC: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , 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 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> <51C48B5A.2040404@ti.com> In-Reply-To: <51C48B5A.2040404@ti.com> 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: 37185 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: robherring2@gmail.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 06/21/2013 12:20 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > 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 ? No. I still think it should be u64 for same reasons I said originally. Rob From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <51CCA67C.2010803@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:54:20 -0500 From: Rob Herring MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Santosh Shilimkar 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> <51C48B5A.2040404@ti.com> In-Reply-To: <51C48B5A.2040404@ti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Nicolas Pitre , linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Catalin Marinas , Aurelien Jacquiot , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , 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 06/21/2013 12:20 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > 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 ? No. I still think it should be u64 for same reasons I said originally. Rob From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robherring2@gmail.com (Rob Herring) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:54:20 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] of: Specify initrd location using 64-bit In-Reply-To: <51C48B5A.2040404@ti.com> References: <1371775956-16453-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <51C4171C.9050908@linutronix.de> <51C48B5A.2040404@ti.com> Message-ID: <51CCA67C.2010803@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 06/21/2013 12:20 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > 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 ? No. I still think it should be u64 for same reasons I said originally. Rob From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Herring Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: Specify initrd location using 64-bit Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:54:20 -0500 Message-ID: <51CCA67C.2010803@gmail.com> References: <1371775956-16453-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <51C4171C.9050908@linutronix.de> <51C48B5A.2040404@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51C48B5A.2040404@ti.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Santosh Shilimkar Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , 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 List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 06/21/2013 12:20 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > 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 ? No. I still think it should be u64 for same reasons I said originally. Rob