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 ?
Regards,
Santosh
