On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 05:55:57PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> From: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
>
> The unsigned long datatype is not sufficient for mapping physical addresses
> >= 4GB.
>
> This patch ensures that the phys_addr_t datatype is used to represent
> physical addresses which may be beyond the range of an unsigned long.
> The virt <-> phys macros are updated accordingly to ensure that virtual
> addresses can remain as they are.
>
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <[email protected]>
This patch needs some more things fixed to prevent warnings:
diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c
index a81355d..6cf76b3 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c
@@ -809,9 +809,10 @@ static void __init sanity_check_meminfo(void)
*/
if (__va(bank->start) >= vmalloc_min ||
__va(bank->start) < (void *)PAGE_OFFSET) {
- printk(KERN_NOTICE "Ignoring RAM at %.8lx-%.8lx "
+ printk(KERN_NOTICE "Ignoring RAM at %.8llx-%.8llx "
"(vmalloc region overlap).\n",
- bank->start, bank->start + bank->size - 1);
+ (unsigned long long)bank->start,
+ (unsigned long long)bank->start + bank->size - 1);
continue;
}
@@ -822,10 +823,11 @@ static void __init sanity_check_meminfo(void)
if (__va(bank->start + bank->size) > vmalloc_min ||
__va(bank->start + bank->size) < __va(bank->start)) {
unsigned long newsize = vmalloc_min - __va(bank->start);
- printk(KERN_NOTICE "Truncating RAM at %.8lx-%.8lx "
- "to -%.8lx (vmalloc region overlap).\n",
- bank->start, bank->start + bank->size - 1,
- bank->start + newsize - 1);
+ printk(KERN_NOTICE "Truncating RAM at %.8llx-%.8llx "
+ "to -%.8llx (vmalloc region overlap).\n",
+ (unsigned long long)bank->start,
+ (unsigned long long)bank->start + bank->size - 1,
+ (unsigned long long)bank->start + newsize - 1);
bank->size = newsize;
}
#endif
Hi Russell,
On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 18:26 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 05:55:57PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > From: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
> >
> > The unsigned long datatype is not sufficient for mapping physical addresses
> > >= 4GB.
> >
> > This patch ensures that the phys_addr_t datatype is used to represent
> > physical addresses which may be beyond the range of an unsigned long.
> > The virt <-> phys macros are updated accordingly to ensure that virtual
> > addresses can remain as they are.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <[email protected]>
>
> This patch needs some more things fixed to prevent warnings:
Ah yes, this is for the non-HIGHMEM case which I hadn't considered for
LPAE. It's a perfectly reasonable configuration I suppose so this needs
fixing.
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c
> index a81355d..6cf76b3 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c
> @@ -809,9 +809,10 @@ static void __init sanity_check_meminfo(void)
> */
> if (__va(bank->start) >= vmalloc_min ||
> __va(bank->start) < (void *)PAGE_OFFSET) {
> - printk(KERN_NOTICE "Ignoring RAM at %.8lx-%.8lx "
> + printk(KERN_NOTICE "Ignoring RAM at %.8llx-%.8llx "
> "(vmalloc region overlap).\n",
> - bank->start, bank->start + bank->size - 1);
> + (unsigned long long)bank->start,
> + (unsigned long long)bank->start + bank->size - 1);
> continue;
> }
>
> @@ -822,10 +823,11 @@ static void __init sanity_check_meminfo(void)
> if (__va(bank->start + bank->size) > vmalloc_min ||
> __va(bank->start + bank->size) < __va(bank->start)) {
> unsigned long newsize = vmalloc_min - __va(bank->start);
> - printk(KERN_NOTICE "Truncating RAM at %.8lx-%.8lx "
> - "to -%.8lx (vmalloc region overlap).\n",
> - bank->start, bank->start + bank->size - 1,
> - bank->start + newsize - 1);
> + printk(KERN_NOTICE "Truncating RAM at %.8llx-%.8llx "
> + "to -%.8llx (vmalloc region overlap).\n",
> + (unsigned long long)bank->start,
> + (unsigned long long)bank->start + bank->size - 1,
> + (unsigned long long)bank->start + newsize - 1);
> bank->size = newsize;
> }
> #endif
Would you like me to submit an additional patch or are you happy merging
this diff in with my ack?
Cheers,
Will
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 02:36:47PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> Would you like me to submit an additional patch or are you happy merging
> this diff in with my ack?
The latter - I've already merged it and if you give an ack I'll add that.
Thanks.
On Mon, 2011-02-21 at 14:58 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 02:36:47PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Would you like me to submit an additional patch or are you happy merging
> > this diff in with my ack?
>
> The latter - I've already merged it and if you give an ack I'll add that.
>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
Thanks,
Will