Hi Tom, On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 at 09:08, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 08:39:05AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Heinrich, > > > > On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 at 02:10, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> > > wrote: > > > > > > On 25.11.24 21:44, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > The EFI-loader implementation converts things back and forth between > > > > addresses and pointers, with not much consistency in how this is done. > > > > > > > > Within most of U-Boot a pointer is a void * and an address is a ulong > > > > > > No. It is phys_addr_t that was introduced to handle the sandbox's > > > virtual addresses. > > > > > > And we should keep this sandbox stuff out of the EFI code. They are only > > > needed for the command line interface. > > > > No. My statement is correct and long predates sandbox. U-Boot has > > always used ulong. Using an address is generally much easier than a > > pointer, so I believe this design decision was (and remains) a good > > one. I certainly would not support changing it. The phys_addr_t type > > has nothing to do with sandbox. > > At the high level, I think parts of the problem are that when U-Boot > went from 32bit architectures to 36bit architectures (assorted PowerPC > Freescale parts) to 64bit architectures that no, we didn't make some > concious and consistent statement that "ulong is for address (except > when it's not). If you look at the linux kernel, phys_addr_t is physical > addresses, ulong is virtual addresses. > > And so phys_addr_t was introduced, iirc, for PowerPC where we had a > 32bit architecture with 36bit addresses and had to deal with that.
OK, thanks. I'm a bit unsure what to do here...but am leaning towards having a separate struct for the memory areas in struct efi_mem_list, rather than using the same efi_mem_desc. Then I can have one use addresses and the other pointers. Regards, Simon
