On 06/27/2013 10:54 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >> 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. The physical address space is represented by phys_addr_t and not u64 within the kernel. If you go for u64 you may waste 32bit and you need to check if the running kernel can deal with this. Why was u64 such a good thing? > Rob Sebastian
