On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@xxxxxxxxx> 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
g.
