linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] of: Specify initrd location using 64-bit

To: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: Specify initrd location using 64-bit
From: Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:54:20 -0500
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com>, Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Mark Salter <msalter@redhat.com>, Aurelien Jacquiot <a-jacquiot@ti.com>, James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>, Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, Jonas Bonn <jonas@southpole.se>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, x86@kernel.org, arm@kernel.org, Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>, Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>, Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=coBh83tmXRRYEu/q9W3A0S0mbu3vwx65za4t22T9riM=; b=sOi35S2zsgSkZZrn/8cxjKo7S0v9fdPA/t2pFhkC09k7z0lrWpGtGATGOIQhzjlBuz /G8JpSjKZQdAj85krM+ZNrl1lM5CSIyyt7HikgT5ciYBXgLmgv8YGMD2gzqn+j6tUF80 AXbACv6Y6iuiYaYZ6pLwzRbLsuBomfdXveHIzYvuhAf8owGeXZguPBqvgeR4IThxNZub jMbMRTjen4E0mVlr0fJqk9YH90OfL+wOitjfhvGS/Wz7zw8NHAusQ0Nl8OU78j7asfcF iuc32fyWC7gI7jCwAw2PDTxDGTvj/LW7aiX6IzXXFKqPXCMrQ0YolYlsP/mSXO7KCl4Q 7eTg==
In-reply-to: <51C48B5A.2040404@ti.com>
List-archive: <http://www.linux-mips.org/archives/linux-mips/>
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?Subject=help>
List-id: linux-mips <linux-mips.eddie.linux-mips.org>
List-owner: <mailto:ralf@linux-mips.org>
List-post: <mailto:linux-mips@linux-mips.org>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?subject=subscribe%20linux-mips>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?subject=unsubscribe%20linux-mips>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <1371775956-16453-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <51C4171C.9050908@linutronix.de> <51C48B5A.2040404@ti.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6
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.

Rob


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>