[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/3][v3] Data types defined for 64 bit physical address

[york sun]

On 02/22/2016 05:38 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-02-10 at 05:20 +0000, york sun wrote:
>> On 02/09/2016 09:10 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2016-02-10 at 02:30 +0000, york sun wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Aneesh and Scott,
>>>>
>>>> I need to revisit this patch. Would it be better to change it as below?
>>>>
>>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_PHYS_64BIT) && !defined(CONFIG_ARM64)
>>>> +typedef unsigned long long dma_addr_t;
>>>> +typedef unsigned long long phys_addr_t;
>>>> +typedef unsigned long long phys_size_t;
>>>> +#else
>>>> +/* DMA addresses are 32-bits wide */
>>>>  typedef u32 dma_addr_t;
>>>> -
>>>>  typedef unsigned long phys_addr_t;
>>>>  typedef unsigned long phys_size_t;
>>>> +#endif
>>>>
>>>> I am debugging another patch and found changing phys_addr_t makes some
>>>> trouble
>>>> for ARM64, especially to mix with ulong.
>>>
>>> What sort of trouble is it causing?  And why would you mix it with ulong?
>>>
>>
>> I am debugging this patch http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/514590/.
>> ulong is used a lot for image related calls. I tried to change to
>> phys_addr_t,
>> but only buried myself even deeper. Basically I am battling on three sides
>>
>> 1. All 32-bit SoCs should continue to work without using 64-bit variables
>> for
>> addresses.
>> 2. 64-bit SoCs such as ARMv8 will support FIT with addresses beyond 32 bits.
>> 3. Host tool such as mkimage should work on both 32- and 64-bit host OS.
>>
>> Any suggestion is welcomed.
> 
> Is there any situation where we'd support loading images to addresses that
> don't fit in ulong?  Why do you need to switch it to phys_addr_t?
> 
> mkimage is another matter -- since it could be generating images for any
> target, it should be using a fixed 64-bit type for internally representing
> target addresses.  Not ulong and not phys_addr_t (which shouldn't exist in
> userspace).
> 
> In any case, the answer isn't to undo this patch or make an exception for
> ARM64.
> 

Scott,

I moved away from this thread. I am not going to revert/undo this patch. I have
sent a RFC set "Enable FIT image to be loaded beyond 32-bit space".

York