[PATCH repost] ARM: shmobile: lager: correct memory map

On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 03:22:14PM +0900, Khiem Nguyen wrote:

Dear Simon-san,

On 9/3/2014 2:48 PM, Simon Horman wrote:

quoted

Hi Khiem-san,

On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 11:42:57AM +0900, Khiem Nguyen wrote:

quoted

Dear Simon-san, Shiiba-san,

Thanks for the patch.

On 9/3/2014 9:49 AM, Simon Horman wrote:

quoted

The base address of the second memory region on the lager
board is 0x140000000. Update the tag used in the dts file accordingly.

This is a documentation fix and should have no run-time affect.

This problem was introduced when the second memory region
was added to the lager dts file by 62bc32a2573c4219
("ARM: shmobile: Include all 4 GiB of memory on Lager)"
in v3.14.

Reported-by: NAOYA SHIIBA <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <redacted>
---
 arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7790-lager.dts | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

I am reposting this as Olof originally requested a syntax change,
which I followed up on, however that change no longer seems appropriate.
This this patch seems to be correct.

[...]

quoted

-	memory at 180000000 {
+	memory at 140000000 {

Could you give more information about not using new syntax ?

I checked memblock information in both 2 ways 
(i.e memory at 140000000 and memory at 1,40000000)
and I got same result.
root at lager:~# cat /sys/kernel/debug/memblock/memory
   0: 0x0000000040000000..0x000000007fffffff
   1: 0x0000000140000000..0x00000001ffffffff

So, what does 'no longer seems appropriate" mean ?

Sorry for being vague.

I am specifically referring to the conversation in
the thread "[PATCH 11/14] arm64: dts: Add initial device tree support for
EXYNOS7" and in particular the following contribution to that discussion by
Olof:

	"Ok, I'm happily proven wrong here, also by confirming how this is
	 done on "real" OF.

	 According to benh:

	 15:20 <benh> ojn: 0,0 is not quite right, it's supposed to be used
	 when the two numbers are different things, like device,fn on PCI

	 The same is true for >2^32 unit addresses, they just use the one
	 integer instead of x,y.

	 So, I take back all I've said on this in the last 72 hours. :) It
	 looks like we might need to revisit some of the 32-bit DTs.  Simon,
	 drop the series you had. :)"

An archive of the message in question is available at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-samsung-soc at vger.kernel.org/msg36123.html

OK. I understood.
Let's follow the right way. :)

Thanks. I have queued up this patch.