lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] add phys_addr_t for holding physical addresses
From
Date
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 15:15 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 12:38 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> >
> >> Add a kernel-wide "phys_addr_t" which is guaranteed to be able to hold
> >> any physical address. By default it equals the word size of the
> >> architecture, but a 32-bit architecture can set ARCH_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
> >> if it needs a 64-bit phys_addr_t.
> >>
> >
> > I've been wondering for some time why can't we make phys_addr_t and
> > resource_size_t the same thing... I don't like having two ARCH_* thing
> > especially since I believe the one for resources is already what we
> > want.
> >
>
> I made the same argument, but Andrew thinks they're conceptually
> distinct. It is theoretically possible you might have a system with >4G
> memory, but all io resources < 4G, so you'd have resource_size_t
> 32-bits, while having 64-bit physical addresses. You can configure such
> a thing, but I don't know if it's 1) useful or 2) used.

Are we sure resource_size_t is -never- used to represent memory ? I
though it was on some platforms....

Ben.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-12 00:37    [W:0.110 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site