[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48A0B9EB.9020709@goop.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:15:07 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: benh@...nel.crashing.org
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, ehabkost@...hat.com,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] add phys_addr_t for holding physical addresses
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.
J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists