Re: [U-Boot-Users] [RFC/PATCH] fix initdram / use of phys_addr_t

Dear Kumar,

in message 96DCB2C0-3028-4A5B-A6F4-5CC3767A5040@kernel.crashing.org you wrote:

would phys_size_t be better?

Yes, definitely much better :-)

...

...

+phys_addr_t initdram(int board_type) {

• long dram_size = 0;

• phys_addr_t dram_size = 0;

No - initdram() does not return an address, it returns a size.

Sure, I understand it returns a size. I was just using phys_addr_t to represent the type for both addresses and sizes.

I think that would be misleading. To me, phys_addr_t looks like a pointer type, while *_size_t is an (unsigned?) integer type.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk