On 26 August 2015 at 16:43, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:06:27AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> Override the __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch() with our own
>> version. We need this in a subsequent patch to make the handling of
>> the memory nodes conditional on whether we are booting via UEFI or
>> not.
>
> Worth clarifying that this is a direct copy?
> ("Our own version" can be read as there being modifications here.)
>
Yes. In fact, it wasn't before, so hence the choice of words here.
>> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/mm/init.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
>> index f5c0680d17d9..ab25fde7397c 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
>> @@ -374,3 +374,44 @@ static int __init keepinitrd_setup(char *__unused)
>>
>> __setup("keepinitrd", keepinitrd_setup);
>> #endif
>> +
>> +void __init early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
>> +{
>> + const u64 phys_offset = __pa(PAGE_OFFSET);
>> +
>> + if (!PAGE_ALIGNED(base)) {
>> + if (size < PAGE_SIZE - (base & ~PAGE_MASK)) {
>> + pr_warn("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
>> + base, base + size);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> + size -= PAGE_SIZE - (base & ~PAGE_MASK);
>> + base = PAGE_ALIGN(base);
>> + }
>> + size &= PAGE_MASK;
>> +
>> + if (base > MAX_MEMBLOCK_ADDR) {
>> + pr_warning("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
>> + base, base + size);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (base + size - 1 > MAX_MEMBLOCK_ADDR) {
>> + pr_warning("Ignoring memory range 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
>> + ((u64)MAX_MEMBLOCK_ADDR) + 1, base + size);
>> + size = MAX_MEMBLOCK_ADDR - base + 1;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (base + size < phys_offset) {
>> + pr_warning("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
>> + base, base + size);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> + if (base < phys_offset) {
>> + pr_warning("Ignoring memory range 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
>> + base, phys_offset);
>> + size -= phys_offset - base;
>> + base = phys_offset;
>> + }
>> + memblock_add(base, size);
>> +}
>> --
>> 1.9.1
>
> Would it be too crazy to do this via an added call to a weak
> memblock_use_dt() function in the original instead, to avoid
> duplicating this entire function?
>
This keeps coming up: I have a series in the freezer that decouples
the kernel mapping from the linear mapping, which makes another round
of changes to this function. So that is why I cloned the function in
the first place, only to reuse this patch for this series as well.
The following does the trick as well, but I am not sure if the alias
attribute is allowed in the kernel
"""
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
index ad87ce826cce..af2f30cbf357 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
@@ -374,3 +374,8
__setup("keepinitrd", keepinitrd_setup);
#endif
+
+void __init early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
+{
+ __early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(base, size);
+}
diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c
index 07496560e5b9..2da75619ed78 100644
--- a/drivers/of/fdt.c
+++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c
@@ -1047,6 +1047,9
}
#endif
+void __early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
+ __attribute__((alias("early_init_dt_add_memory_arch")));
+
bool __init early_init_dt_verify(void *params)
{
if (!params)
diff --git a/include/linux/of_fdt.h b/include/linux/of_fdt.h
index df9ef3801812..64fcb143f5f4 100644
--- a/include/linux/of_fdt.h
+++ b/include/linux/of_fdt.h
@@ -66,6 +66,7
extern void early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem(void);
extern void early_init_fdt_reserve_self(void);
extern void early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size);
+extern void __early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size);
extern int early_init_dt_reserve_memory_arch(phys_addr_t base,
phys_addr_t size,
bool no_map);
extern void * early_init_dt_alloc_memory_arch(u64 size, u64 align);
"""
> We need the functionality for 4/5 (nice cleanup) and 5/5 (bugfix), so
> happy with whatever works.
>
Indeed.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
