On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
> > of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
> > the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Laura Abbott wrote:
> The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
> of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
> the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
> be smaller than 64-bits. This may result in
Fixed Rob's and devicetree's addresses
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Laura Abbott wrote:
> The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
> of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
> the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
> be
Fixed Rob's and devicetree's addresses
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
wrote:
> Hi Laura,
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Laura Abbott wrote:
>> The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
>> of a memory region as u64 types. The function never
Hi Laura,
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Laura Abbott wrote:
> The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
> of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
> the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
> be smaller than 64-bits. This may
Hi Laura,
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Laura Abbott lau...@codeaurora.org wrote:
The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
be smaller than
Fixed Rob's and devicetree's addresses
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Laura Abbott lau...@codeaurora.org wrote:
The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t
Fixed Rob's and devicetree's addresses
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
ge...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
Hi Laura,
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Laura Abbott lau...@codeaurora.org wrote:
The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
of a memory region as
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Laura Abbott lau...@codeaurora.org wrote:
The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
be smaller than 64-bits. This
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Rob Herring wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Laura Abbott lau...@codeaurora.org wrote:
The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
the base and size can actually fit in a
The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
be smaller than 64-bits. This may result in incorrect memory
being passed to memblock_add if the memory falls
The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
be smaller than 64-bits. This may result in incorrect memory
being passed to memblock_add if the memory falls
12 matches
Mail list logo
