On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 09:44:30AM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> This patch adds support to return the E820 type associated with an address
s/This patch adds/Add/
> range.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/e820/api.h | 2 ++
> arch/x86/include/asm/e820/types.h | 2 ++
> arch/x86/kernel/e820.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/e820/api.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/e820/api.h
> index 8e0f8b8..7c1bdc9 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/e820/api.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/e820/api.h
> @@ -38,6 +38,8 @@
> extern void e820__reallocate_tables(void);
> extern void e820__register_nosave_regions(unsigned long limit_pfn);
>
> +extern enum e820_type e820__get_entry_type(u64 start, u64 end);
> +
> /*
> * Returns true iff the specified range [start,end) is completely contained inside
> * the ISA region.
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/e820/types.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/e820/types.h
> index 4adeed0..bf49591 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/e820/types.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/e820/types.h
> @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@
> * These are the E820 types known to the kernel:
> */
> enum e820_type {
> + E820_TYPE_INVALID = 0,
> +
Now this is strange - ACPI spec doesn't explicitly say that range type 0
is invalid. Am I looking at the wrong place?
"Table 15-312 Address Range Types12" in ACPI spec 6.
If 0 is really the invalid entry, then e820_print_type() needs updating
too. And then the invalid-entry-add should be a separate patch.
> E820_TYPE_RAM = 1,
> E820_TYPE_RESERVED = 2,
> E820_TYPE_ACPI = 3,
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
