On some architectures, u_long isn't large enough for resource definitions.
Particularly, powerpc and arm allow 36-bit (or larger) physical addresses, but
type `long' is only 32-bit. This extends rman's resources to uintmax_t. With
this change, any resource can feasibly be placed anywhere in physical memory
(within the constraints of the driver).
Why uintmax_t and not something machine dependent, or uint64_t? Though it's
possible for uintmax_t to grow, it's highly unlikely it will become 128-bit on
32-bit architectures. 64-bit architectures should have plenty of RAM to absorb
the increase on resource sizes if and when this occurs, and the number of
resources on memory-constrained systems should be sufficiently small as to not
pose a drastic overhead. That being said, uintmax_t was chosen for source
clarity. If it's specified as uint64_t, all printf()-like calls would either
need casts to uintmax_t, or be littered with PRI*64 macros. Casts to uintmax_t
aren't horrible, but it would also bake into the API for
resource_list_print_type() either a hidden assumption that entries get cast to
uintmax_t for printing, or these calls would need the PRI*64 macros. Since
source code is meant to be read more often than written, I chose the clearest
path of simply using uintmax_t.
Tested on a PowerPC p5020-based board, which places all device resources in
0xfxxxxxxxx, and has 8GB RAM.
Regression tested on qemu-system-i386
Regression tested on qemu-system-mips (malta profile)
Tested PAE and devinfo on virtualbox (live CD)
Special thanks to bz for his testing on ARM.
Reviewed By: bz, jhb (previous)
Relnotes: Yes
Sponsored by: Alex Perez/Inertial Computing
Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D4544
720f47c9ed