From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E564BDDFB6 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:51:08 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] [POWERPC] Make lmb support large physical addressing From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Becky Bruce In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:50:42 +1100 Message-Id: <1202943042.7296.48.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 16:43 -0600, Becky Bruce wrote: > Convert the lmb code to use phys_addr_t instead of unsigned long for > physical addresses and sizes. This is needed to support large amounts > of RAM on 32-bit systems that support 36-bit physical addressing. > > Built/booted on mpc8641; build tested on pasemi and 44x. > > Signed-off-by: Becky Bruce > --- > Folks, > > This has been sitting in my tree for a few days, and now it looks like > David M. has submitted a patch that changes the lmb code to be shared > between sparc and powerpc. Sparc has no notion of a phys_addr_t. > Should we just use u64 everywhere in this code instead? Thoughts? An option would be to use resource_size_t, though it's a bit yucky... Dave, what do you prefer ? Ben.