Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] pci: Treat all PCI bus addresses as 64-bit

2008-10-21 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Kumar Gala, In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: PCI bus is inherently 64-bit. We should treat all PCI related bus addresses as 64-bit quanities. This allows us to have the ability to support devices or memory on the PCI bus above the 32-bit boundary. I don't think this is a good

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] pci: Treat all PCI bus addresses as 64-bit

2008-10-21 Thread Jerry Van Baren
Wolfgang Denk wrote: Dear Kumar Gala, In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: PCI bus is inherently 64-bit. We should treat all PCI related bus addresses as 64-bit quanities. This allows us to have the ability to support devices or memory on the PCI bus above the 32-bit boundary. I

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] pci: Treat all PCI bus addresses as 64-bit

2008-10-21 Thread Kumar Gala
On Oct 21, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Jerry Van Baren wrote: Wolfgang Denk wrote: Dear Kumar Gala, In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: PCI bus is inherently 64-bit. We should treat all PCI related bus addresses as 64-bit quanities. This allows us to have the ability to support devices or

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] pci: Treat all PCI bus addresses as 64-bit

2008-10-21 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Jerry Van Baren, In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: Should we not enable this only for such systems that actually need it? ... Why would we not use phys_addr_t and phys_size_t for the PCI addresses? Good point. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH,

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] pci: Treat all PCI bus addresses as 64-bit

2008-10-21 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Kumar Gala, In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: If this is desired to be configurable should I introduce a pci_addr_t/ pci_size_t? Coupling to phys_addr_t/phys_size_t doesn't make sense to me because its perfectly reasonable to have a 64-bit PCI device work in a 32-bit