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.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.
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
--
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
