Re: [RFC][PATCH] Expanding the size of "start" and "end" field in "struct resource"

[Kumar Gala]

On Mar 15, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 03:05:30PM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > I disagree.  I think we need to look to see what the "bloat" is
> > before we go and make start/end config dependent.
>
> Eh?  32 bit kernels get used in embedded systems, which includes those
> with only 8MB of RAM.  The upper 32 bits will never be anything other
> than 0.

Why do people equate embedded with small amounts of memory.  I know  
of embedded systems which use 32-bit PowerPCs that have >4G of system  
memory.

> > It seems clear that drivers dont handle the fact that "start"/"end"
> > change an 32-bit vs 64-bit archs to begin with.  By making this even
> > more config dependent seems to be asking for more trouble.
>
> You can't get a non-32 bit value on a 32 bit platform, so why should a
> driver be expected to handle anything?

I dont follow.  I would say that most drivers shouldn't care about  
the fact that they are on a 32-bit platform or 64-bit platform.  The  
point is that drivers have made assumptions about being on 32-bit  
platforms which breaks when a 32-bit platform supports a larger  
physical address space.

- kumar
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/