>>>> +struct ranges_pci {
>>>> + unsigned int pci_space;
>>>> + u64 pci_addr;
>>>> + phys_addr_t phys_addr;
>>>> + u64 size;
>>>> +} __attribute__((packed));
>>>> +
>>>
>>> This structure definition uses unaligned members because of the
>>> 'packed' attribute. Is that really what you intended?
>>>
>> yes, exactly, because I'm mapping this struct on ranges extracted from
>> the dts instead of juggling with ranges[foo] offsets.
>
> I see. It does however look wrong to me, because you are using a
> hardcoded
> phys_addr_t type. This breaks when phys_addr has a different size from
> what
> you expect, e.g. when booting a pure 32 bit kernel on a machine that
> has
> a 64 bit physical address space.
More generally, you can even have a different size for the "phys_addr"
for different nodes in the same device tree.
You really should look at the #address-cells in this node's parent,
and translate that all the way up to the root node to get a CPU
address.
Segher
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
