[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Rob Herring <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: Specify initrd location using 64-bit
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:54:13 +0200
Cc: Santosh Shilimkar <>,, Vineet Gupta <>, Russell King <>, Catalin Marinas <>, Will Deacon <>, Mark Salter <>, Aurelien Jacquiot <>, James Hogan <>, Michal Simek <>, Ralf Baechle <>, Jonas Bonn <>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>, Paul Mackerras <>,,, Chris Zankel <>, Max Filippov <>, Grant Likely <>, Rob Herring <>, Nicolas Pitre <>,,,,,,
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <>
List-help: <>
List-id: linux-mips <>
List-owner: <>
List-post: <>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <>
List-unsubscribe: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130518 Icedove/17.0.5
On 06/27/2013 10:54 PM, Rob Herring 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.

The physical address space is represented by phys_addr_t and not u64
within the kernel. If you go for u64 you may waste 32bit and you need
to check if the running kernel can deal with this.
Why was u64 such a good thing?

> Rob


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