> From: Simon Glass <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 06:08:10 -0700
Hi Simon, > Hi Tom, > > On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 at 09:08, Tom Rini <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > > 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. That does not make sense to me. Why would you want to use pointers to manage what is effectively a memory address map?
