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.mayd...@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
