[U-Boot] [PATCH] common/memsize.c: Increase save array for supporting memory size > 4GB

[Chee, Tien Fong]

On Mon, 2018-06-18 at 12:59 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 03:32:43PM +0800, tien.fong.chee at intel.com
> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > From: Tien Fong Chee <tien.fong.chee at intel.com>
> > 
> > In ARM 64-bits, memory size can be supported is more than 4GB,
> > hence increasing save array is needed to cope with testing larger
> > memory.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tien Fong Chee <tien.fong.chee at intel.com>
> > ---
> >  common/memsize.c |    2 +-
> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/common/memsize.c b/common/memsize.c
> > index 5670e95..b091203 100644
> > --- a/common/memsize.c
> > +++ b/common/memsize.c
> > @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
> >  long get_ram_size(long *base, long maxsize)
> >  {
> >  	volatile long *addr;
> > -	long           save[31];
> > +	long           save[BITS_PER_LONG];
> >  	long           save_base;
> >  	long           cnt;
> >  	long           val;
> Since BITS_PER_LONG is 32 or 64, shouldn't we use B_P_L - 1 here?  Or
> are you saying there's also a case where this is wrong on 32bit
> today?
As long as the array is large enough to cope with shifting
implementation, then it should be fine. For 32-bit, only 31 units in
array required for storing 31 shifting values, and this apply for 64-
bit also as long as the implementation of first shifting value is not
change(cnt = (maxsize / sizeof(long)) >> 1).
IMO, for simplifying and safety purpose(may be one day implementation
change to "cnt = (maxsize / sizeof(long))", above B_P_L is still
workable.
> Thanks!
>