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

[Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>]

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