linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: Specify initrd location using 64-bit
From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 15:49:31 +0200
Cc: Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com>, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>, linux-mips <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>, Aurelien Jacquiot <a-jacquiot@ti.com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, Jonas Bonn <jonas@southpole.se>, Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>, linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org, x86@kernel.org, arm@kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>, devicetree-discuss <devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org>, Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>, Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>, "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
In-reply-to: <CACxGe6vOH0sCFVVXrYqD3dbYdOvithVu7-d1cvy5885i8x_Myw@mail.gmail.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> <51CCA67C.2010803@gmail.com> <CACxGe6vOH0sCFVVXrYqD3dbYdOvithVu7-d1cvy5885i8x_Myw@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On 10:59 Fri 28 Jun     , Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com> 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
> 
+1

fix type

Best Regards,
J.

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