From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:54:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:45888 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S6817387Ab3F1HymecFPz (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:54:42 +0200 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=[172.123.10.21]) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UsTVX-0003A9-Ly; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:54:15 +0200 Message-ID: <51CD4125.5060305@linutronix.de> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:54:13 +0200 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130518 Icedove/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rob Herring CC: Santosh Shilimkar , 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> <51CCA67C.2010803@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <51CCA67C.2010803@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 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: 37191 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: bigeasy@linutronix.de 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 06/27/2013 10:54 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >> 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. The physical address space is represented by phys_addr_t and not u64 within the kernel. If you go for u64 you may waste 32bit and you need to check if the running kernel can deal with this. Why was u64 such a good thing? > Rob Sebastian From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from Galois.linutronix.de (www.linutronix.de [62.245.132.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2A252C038D for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:54:50 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <51CD4125.5060305@linutronix.de> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:54:13 +0200 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rob Herring 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> <51CCA67C.2010803@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <51CCA67C.2010803@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Nicolas Pitre , linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Aurelien Jacquiot , Catalin Marinas , 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 , Santosh Shilimkar , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 06/27/2013 10:54 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >> 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. The physical address space is represented by phys_addr_t and not u64 within the kernel. If you go for u64 you may waste 32bit and you need to check if the running kernel can deal with this. Why was u64 such a good thing? > Rob Sebastian From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bigeasy@linutronix.de (Sebastian Andrzej Siewior) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:54:13 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] of: Specify initrd location using 64-bit In-Reply-To: <51CCA67C.2010803@gmail.com> References: <1371775956-16453-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <51C4171C.9050908@linutronix.de> <51C48B5A.2040404@ti.com> <51CCA67C.2010803@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51CD4125.5060305@linutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 06/27/2013 10:54 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >> 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. The physical address space is represented by phys_addr_t and not u64 within the kernel. If you go for u64 you may waste 32bit and you need to check if the running kernel can deal with this. Why was u64 such a good thing? > Rob Sebastian From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: Specify initrd location using 64-bit Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:54:13 +0200 Message-ID: <51CD4125.5060305@linutronix.de> References: <1371775956-16453-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <51C4171C.9050908@linutronix.de> <51C48B5A.2040404@ti.com> <51CCA67C.2010803@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51CCA67C.2010803@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Rob Herring Cc: Santosh Shilimkar , 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.orgli List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 06/27/2013 10:54 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >> 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. The physical address space is represented by phys_addr_t and not u64 within the kernel. If you go for u64 you may waste 32bit and you need to check if the running kernel can deal with this. Why was u64 such a good thing? > Rob Sebastian