On 05/27/2010 02:57 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Scott Wood, > > In message<20100527194618.gc5...@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> you wrote: >> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 08:16:28PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >>> get_ram_size() used to use "long" data types for addresses and data, >>> which limited it to systems with less than 4 GiB memory. As more and >>> more systems are coming up with bigger memory resources, we adapt the >>> code to use phys_addr_t / phys_size_t data types instead. >> >> This cannot work as is. The only systems where this makes a difference are >> where physical addresses are larger than virtual pointers -- but you try to >> shove the 64-bit physical offset into a 32-bit pointer. >> >> You need to create temporary mappings, if you really want to do this. > > ? > > Isn't phys_addr_t assumed to be the right data type to hold a > physical address?
Yes. But you can't dereference a physical address directly. When you do "addr = base + cnt", you're throwing away the upper 32 bits. "phys_addr_t *" is not a 64-bit pointer, it is a 32-bit pointer to a 64-bit quantity. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
