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 ? Regards, Santosh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev