On 26/08/15 02:25, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
Option 1: memory@0 { device_type = "memory"; reg = <0x00000000 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x05e00000>, <0x00000000 0x05f00000 0x00000000 0x00eff000>, <0x00000000 0x06e00000 0x00000000 0x0060f000>, <0x00000000 0x07410000 0x00000000 0x38bf0000>; }; [snip]
>>
Option 2: memory@0 { device_type = "memory"; reg = <0x0 0x0 0x0 0x40000000>; };
>> [snip] >>
I prefer the second one. From my view, memory node should only describe the hardware information of memory.
Haven't we already established that, to avoid the risk of UEFI applications accessing inappropriate memory locations, a (correct) UEFI implementation must use, and pass to the kernel, a memory map that looks like option 1?
That being the case why would we want u-boot (or any other similar bootloader) to pass a memory map that is gratuitously different to the one supplied by UEFI?
Daniel. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
