Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754688Ab3F1HyZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jun 2013 03:54:25 -0400 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:44712 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751407Ab3F1HyY (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jun 2013 03:54:24 -0400 Message-ID: <51CD4125.5060305@linutronix.de> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:54:13 +0200 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130518 Icedove/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rob Herring CC: Santosh Shilimkar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vineet Gupta , Russell King , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Mark Salter , Aurelien Jacquiot , James Hogan , Michal Simek , Ralf Baechle , Jonas Bonn , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , x86@kernel.org, arm@kernel.org, Chris Zankel , Max Filippov , Grant Likely , Rob Herring , Nicolas Pitre , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: Specify initrd location using 64-bit References: <1371775956-16453-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <51C4171C.9050908@linutronix.de> <51C48B5A.2040404@ti.com> <51CCA67C.2010803@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <51CCA67C.2010803@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 743 Lines: 21 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 Sebastian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/