Hi, Matthias, Arnd,
After previous discussion[1], I'm not sure which one do you preferred
for mt8127/mt8135, so I send 64bits address version again. Trying to not
SPAM too much, I only send the difference(first 4 patches) this time.
We do have SoC that need >4GB address, so at least those will need to
use 64bits address. If we want to have a consistent look, 64bits is the
way to go. Also we already have some patches under review now using
64bits address. So I preferred this one, but both versions are OK to me.
Please help to review this and let me know anything you want me to
change. Thanks.
Joe.C
[1]
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-November/299598.html
Hi Joe,
2014-11-11 8:58 GMT+01:00 Yingjoe Chen <[email protected]>:
>
> Hi, Matthias, Arnd,
>
> After previous discussion[1], I'm not sure which one do you preferred
> for mt8127/mt8135, so I send 64bits address version again. Trying to not
> SPAM too much, I only send the difference(first 4 patches) this time.
>
> We do have SoC that need >4GB address, so at least those will need to
> use 64bits address. If we want to have a consistent look, 64bits is the
> way to go. Also we already have some patches under review now using
> 64bits address. So I preferred this one, but both versions are OK to me.
Regarding Arnd's last email, the 64 bit is the right way.
Signed-off-by: Matthias Brugger <[email protected]>
>
> Please help to review this and let me know anything you want me to
> change. Thanks.
>
> Joe.C
>
> [1]
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-November/299598.html
>
>
>
--
motzblog.wordpress.com
On Wed, 2014-11-12 at 18:08 +0100, Matthias Brugger wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> 2014-11-11 8:58 GMT+01:00 Yingjoe Chen <[email protected]>:
> >
> > Hi, Matthias, Arnd,
> >
> > After previous discussion[1], I'm not sure which one do you preferred
> > for mt8127/mt8135, so I send 64bits address version again. Trying to not
> > SPAM too much, I only send the difference(first 4 patches) this time.
> >
> > We do have SoC that need >4GB address, so at least those will need to
> > use 64bits address. If we want to have a consistent look, 64bits is the
> > way to go. Also we already have some patches under review now using
> > 64bits address. So I preferred this one, but both versions are OK to me.
>
> Regarding Arnd's last email, the 64 bit is the right way.
Hi Matthias,
Ok, please use this v5' then.
Thanks,
Joe.C