On Monday 01 July 2013 03:59 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior > <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 06/29/2013 01:43 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >>> Apart from waste of 32bit, what is the other concern you >>> have ? >> >> You pass a u64 as a physical address which is represented in other >> parts of the kernel (for a good reason) by phys_addr_t. >> >>> 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. >> You want to have your code in so you can continue with your work, that >> is okay. The other two arguments why u64 here is a good thing was "due >> to what I said earlier" and "+1" and I don't have the time to look >> that up. >> >> There should be no problems on x86 if this goes in as it is now. >> >> But think about this: What happens if you boot your ARM device without >> PAE and your initrd is in the upper region? If you are lucky the kernel >> looks at a different place where it also has a read permission, notices >> nothing sane is there, writes a message and continues. And if it is not >> allowed to read? It is clearly the user's fault for booting a non-PAE >> kernel. > > That's actual the original reason: DT has it as 64 bit, and passes it to a > 32 bit kernel when running in 32 bit mode without PAE. > Thanks all for comments and useful discussion. I will resubmit the patch with update to fix the printk warnings reported by Vineet and James post the $subject change. Am assuming the patch will go via Grant Likely's tree. Regards, Santosh
