From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: cyril@ti.com (Cyril Chemparathy)
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:09:50 -0400
Subject: [PATCH v3 RESEND 08/17] ARM: LPAE: use phys_addr_t in
 free_memmap()
In-Reply-To: <20120924134145.GB26454@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
References: <1348242975-19184-1-git-send-email-cyril@ti.com>
 <1348242975-19184-9-git-send-email-cyril@ti.com>
 <20120924132942.GD23298@arm.com>
 <20120924134145.GB26454@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Message-ID: <506077BE.6000600@ti.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 9/24/2012 9:41 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 02:29:42PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> This function also calls free_bootmem() which takes unsigned long. Are
>> patches sent separately for this or we just ignore holes in memmap?
>> There are other calls to free_bootmem() or reserve_bootmem(), do they
>> just work with the high phys addresses?
>
> Bootmem only deals with physical addresses which fit within the size
> of an 'unsigned long'.  Unfortunately, the bootmem API is a mess of
> 'unsigned long' physical addresses and PFNs.
>
> Years ago there was a patch to make it use only PFNs but other changes
> resulted in that patch being thrown away.
>

A separate patch has been posted for bootmem (see [1]).

Tejun suggested that we'd be better off moving entirely to memblock 
instead (see [2]).

I'd be happy to take this up, but I'm not very familiar with the 
reasoning behind the mixed bootmem + memblock usage that we have today. 
  Some background and pointers on this topic would greatly help.

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/12/435
[2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/13/511

-- 
Thanks
- Cyril