Re: [PATCH] of: Specify initrd location using 64-bit

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>]

On 10:59 Fri 28 Jun     , Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 06/21/2013 12:20 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> >> On Friday 21 June 2013 05:04 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> >>> On 06/21/2013 02:52 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c b/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c
> >>>> index 0a2c68f..62e2e8f 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c
> >>>> +++ b/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c
> >>>> @@ -136,8 +136,7 @@ void __init early_init_devtree(void *params)
> >>>>  }
> >>>>
> >>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD
> >>>> -void __init early_init_dt_setup_initrd_arch(unsigned long start,
> >>>> -           unsigned long end)
> >>>> +void __init early_init_dt_setup_initrd_arch(u64 start, u64 end)
> >>>>  {
> >>>>     initrd_start = (unsigned long)__va(start);
> >>>>     initrd_end = (unsigned long)__va(end);
> >>>
> >>> I think it would better to go here for phys_addr_t instead of u64. This
> >>> would force you in of_flat_dt_match() to check if the value passed from
> >>> DT specifies a memory address outside of 32bit address space and the
> >>> kernel can't deal with this because its phys_addr_t is 32bit only due
> >>> to a Kconfig switch.
> >>>
> >>> For x86, the initrd has to remain in the 32bit address space so passing
> >>> the initrd in the upper range would violate the ABI. Not sure if this
> >>> is true for other archs as well (ARM obviously not).
> >>>
> >> That pretty much means phys_addr_t. It will work for me as well but
> >> in last thread from consistency with memory and reserved node, Rob
> >> insisted to keep it as u64. So before I re-spin another version,
> >> would like to here what Rob has to say considering the x86 requirement.
> >>
> >> 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.
> 
> +1
> 
+1

fix type

Best Regards,
J.