Re: [PATCH repost] ARM: shmobile: lager: correct memory map

[Khiem Nguyen <khiem.nguyen.xt@renesas.com>]

Dear Simon-san,

On 9/3/2014 2:48 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> Hi Khiem-san,
> 
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 11:42:57AM +0900, Khiem Nguyen wrote:
>> Dear Simon-san, Shiiba-san,
>>
>> Thanks for the patch.
>>
>> On 9/3/2014 9:49 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
>>> The base address of the second memory region on the lager
>>> board is 0x140000000. Update the tag used in the dts file accordingly.
>>>
>>> This is a documentation fix and should have no run-time affect.
>>>
>>> This problem was introduced when the second memory region
>>> was added to the lager dts file by 62bc32a2573c4219
>>> ("ARM: shmobile: Include all 4 GiB of memory on Lager)"
>>> in v3.14.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: NAOYA SHIIBA <naoya.shiiba.nx@renesas.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7790-lager.dts | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> I am reposting this as Olof originally requested a syntax change,
>>> which I followed up on, however that change no longer seems appropriate.
>>> This this patch seems to be correct.
>> [...]
>>> -	memory@180000000 {
>>> +	memory@140000000 {
>>
>> Could you give more information about not using new syntax ?
>>
>> I checked memblock information in both 2 ways 
>> (i.e memory@140000000 and memory@1,40000000)
>> and I got same result.
>> root@lager:~# cat /sys/kernel/debug/memblock/memory
>>    0: 0x0000000040000000..0x000000007fffffff
>>    1: 0x0000000140000000..0x00000001ffffffff
>>
>> So, what does 'no longer seems appropriate" mean ?
> 
> Sorry for being vague.
> 
> I am specifically referring to the conversation in
> the thread "[PATCH 11/14] arm64: dts: Add initial device tree support for
> EXYNOS7" and in particular the following contribution to that discussion by
> Olof:
> 
> 	"Ok, I'm happily proven wrong here, also by confirming how this is
> 	 done on "real" OF.
> 
> 	 According to benh:
> 
> 	 15:20 <benh> ojn: 0,0 is not quite right, it's supposed to be used
> 	 when the two numbers are different things, like device,fn on PCI
> 
> 	 The same is true for >2^32 unit addresses, they just use the one
> 	 integer instead of x,y.
> 
> 	 So, I take back all I've said on this in the last 72 hours. :) It
> 	 looks like we might need to revisit some of the 32-bit DTs.  Simon,
> 	 drop the series you had. :)"
> 
> An archive of the message in question is available at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org/msg36123.html

OK. I understood.
Let's follow the right way. :)

-- 
Best regards,
KHIEM Nguyen