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. York _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
