| Message ID | 1341507652-22155-2-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:00 AM, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote: > Make the RAM size in arm_boot_info a target_phys_addr_t so > it can express RAM sizes up to the limit imposed by the > physical address size. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> Reviewed-by: Peter A. G. Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@petalogix.com> > --- > hw/arm-misc.h | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/arm-misc.h b/hw/arm-misc.h > index 1f96229..c313027 100644 > --- a/hw/arm-misc.h > +++ b/hw/arm-misc.h > @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ qemu_irq *armv7m_init(MemoryRegion *address_space_mem, > > /* arm_boot.c */ > struct arm_boot_info { > - int ram_size; > + target_phys_addr_t ram_size; > const char *kernel_filename; > const char *kernel_cmdline; > const char *initrd_filename; > -- > 1.7.1 >
Am 05.07.2012 19:00, schrieb Peter Maydell: > Make the RAM size in arm_boot_info a target_phys_addr_t so > it can express RAM sizes up to the limit imposed by the > physical address size. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> > --- > hw/arm-misc.h | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/arm-misc.h b/hw/arm-misc.h > index 1f96229..c313027 100644 > --- a/hw/arm-misc.h > +++ b/hw/arm-misc.h > @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ qemu_irq *armv7m_init(MemoryRegion *address_space_mem, > > /* arm_boot.c */ > struct arm_boot_info { > - int ram_size; > + target_phys_addr_t ram_size; > const char *kernel_filename; > const char *kernel_cmdline; > const char *initrd_filename; Didn't we conclude in lengthy and emotional discussions that int64_t was the best compromise to solve the highbank and pseries image loading issues? What I still dislike about target_phys_addr_t is that "ram_size" is not an address but a size. Andreas
On 06.07.2012, at 15:48, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 05.07.2012 19:00, schrieb Peter Maydell: >> Make the RAM size in arm_boot_info a target_phys_addr_t so >> it can express RAM sizes up to the limit imposed by the >> physical address size. >> >> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> >> --- >> hw/arm-misc.h | 2 +- >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/arm-misc.h b/hw/arm-misc.h >> index 1f96229..c313027 100644 >> --- a/hw/arm-misc.h >> +++ b/hw/arm-misc.h >> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ qemu_irq *armv7m_init(MemoryRegion *address_space_mem, >> >> /* arm_boot.c */ >> struct arm_boot_info { >> - int ram_size; >> + target_phys_addr_t ram_size; >> const char *kernel_filename; >> const char *kernel_cmdline; >> const char *initrd_filename; > > Didn't we conclude in lengthy and emotional discussions that int64_t was > the best compromise to solve the highbank and pseries image loading issues? > > What I still dislike about target_phys_addr_t is that "ram_size" is not > an address but a size. But isn't MAX(size) always defined to be smaller than or equal to MAX(addr)? So target_phys_addr_t is _always_ a type that is big enough to hold the information. Alex
Am 06.07.2012 15:54, schrieb Alexander Graf: > > On 06.07.2012, at 15:48, Andreas Färber wrote: > >> Am 05.07.2012 19:00, schrieb Peter Maydell: >>> Make the RAM size in arm_boot_info a target_phys_addr_t so >>> it can express RAM sizes up to the limit imposed by the >>> physical address size. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> >>> --- >>> hw/arm-misc.h | 2 +- >>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/hw/arm-misc.h b/hw/arm-misc.h >>> index 1f96229..c313027 100644 >>> --- a/hw/arm-misc.h >>> +++ b/hw/arm-misc.h >>> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ qemu_irq *armv7m_init(MemoryRegion *address_space_mem, >>> >>> /* arm_boot.c */ >>> struct arm_boot_info { >>> - int ram_size; >>> + target_phys_addr_t ram_size; >>> const char *kernel_filename; >>> const char *kernel_cmdline; >>> const char *initrd_filename; >> >> Didn't we conclude in lengthy and emotional discussions that int64_t was >> the best compromise to solve the highbank and pseries image loading issues? >> >> What I still dislike about target_phys_addr_t is that "ram_size" is not >> an address but a size. > > But isn't MAX(size) always defined to be smaller than or equal to MAX(addr)? So target_phys_addr_t is _always_ a type that is big enough to hold the information. I'm not disputing that. If you do typedef target_phys_addr_t/* or whatever */ target_phys_size_t; target_phys_size_t ram_size; then I'm happy as well, I just dislike writing target_phys_addr_t size. Andreas
On 6 July 2012 14:48, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote: > Am 05.07.2012 19:00, schrieb Peter Maydell: >> Make the RAM size in arm_boot_info a target_phys_addr_t so >> it can express RAM sizes up to the limit imposed by the >> physical address size. > Didn't we conclude in lengthy and emotional discussions that int64_t was > the best compromise to solve the highbank and pseries image loading issues? uint64_t, but yes, you're right. Will change. -- PMM
diff --git a/hw/arm-misc.h b/hw/arm-misc.h index 1f96229..c313027 100644 --- a/hw/arm-misc.h +++ b/hw/arm-misc.h @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ qemu_irq *armv7m_init(MemoryRegion *address_space_mem, /* arm_boot.c */ struct arm_boot_info { - int ram_size; + target_phys_addr_t ram_size; const char *kernel_filename; const char *kernel_cmdline; const char *initrd_filename;
Make the RAM size in arm_boot_info a target_phys_addr_t so it can express RAM sizes up to the limit imposed by the physical address size. Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> --- hw/arm-misc.h | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)