On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 1:43 AM, Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> 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. >>> >>> +1 >>> >> +1 >> >> fix type >> > Apart from waste of 32bit, what is the other concern you > have ? I really want to converge on this patch because it > has been a open ended discussion for quite some time. Does > that really break any thing on x86 or your concern is more > from semantics of the physical address. As the "original reasons" were not in this thread, I had to search a bit. I suppose you mean this one: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/13/544 ? Summarized: | The address to load the initrd is decided by the bootloader/user and set | at that point later in time. | The dtb should not be tied to the kernel you are booting. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
