Hi,
> On 8 Sep 2022, at 22:41, Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Stefano,
>
> On 08/09/2022 21:59, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> +/*
>>> + * TODO: BAR addresses and Root Complex window addresses are not guaranteed
>>> + * to be page aligned. We should check for alignment but this is not the
>>> + * right place for alignment check.
>>> + */
>>> +static int is_bar_valid(const struct dt_device_node *dev,
>>> + uint64_t addr, uint64_t len, void *data)
>>> +{
>>> + struct pdev_bar_check *bar_data = data;
>>> + unsigned long s = bar_data->start;
>>> + unsigned long e = bar_data->end;
>>> +
>>> + if ( (s >= addr) && (e <= (addr + len - 1)) )
>>> + bar_data->is_valid = true;
>> "s" and "e" are "unsigned long" while "addr" and "len" are uint64_t. Is
>> that OK?
>
> Good catch. No, physical address on Arm32 can be up to 40 bits.
>
>> Specifically, considering a potential arm32 case, shouldn't "s" and "e"
>> be uint64_t as well? Which means pdev_bar_check.start and end should be
>> uint64_t?
>
> They should be paddr_t which will be 64-bit on both arm32 and arm64.
paddr_t sounds a lot better here.
@Rahul: Can you send a v6 fixing this ?
Thanks
Bertrand
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Julien Grall
