Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 2/11/21 6:11 PM, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>> Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> On 2/11/21 3:59 PM, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>>>> Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/11/21 9:42 AM, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>> [PATCH] powerpc: Rename kexec elfcorehdr_addr to elf_headers_mem
>>>>>> This change causes build problem for x86_64 architecture (please see the
>>>>>> mail from kernel test bot below) since arch/x86/include/asm/kexec.h uses
>>>>>> "elf_load_addr" for the ELF header buffer address and not
>>>>>> "elf_headers_mem".
>>>>>> struct kimage_arch {
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> /* Core ELF header buffer */
>>>>>> void *elf_headers;
>>>>>> unsigned long elf_headers_sz;
>>>>>> unsigned long elf_load_addr;
>>>>>> };
>>>>>> I am thinking of limiting of_kexec_alloc_and_setup_fdt() to ARM64 and
>>>>>> PPC64 since they are the only ones using this function now.
>>>>>> #if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) && defined(CONFIG_PPC64)
>>>>> Sorry - I meant to say
>>>>> #if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) || defined(CONFIG_PPC64)
>>>>>
>>>> Does it build correctly if you rename elf_headers_mem to elf_load_addr?
>>>> Or the other way around, renaming x86's elf_load_addr to
>>>> elf_headers_mem. I don't really have a preference.
>>>
>>> Yes - changing arm64 and ppc from "elf_headers_mem" to "elf_load_addr" builds
>>> fine.
>>>
>>> But I am concerned about a few other architectures that also define "struct
>>> kimage_arch" such as "parisc", "arm" which do not have any ELF related fields.
>>> They would not build if the config defines CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE and
>>> CONFIG_OF_FLATTREE.
>>>
>>> Do you think that could be an issue?
>> That's a good point. But in practice, arm doesn't support
>> CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE. And while parisc does support CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE, as
>> far as I could determine it doesn't support CONFIG_OF.
>> So IMHO we don't need to worry about them. We'll cross that bridge if we
>> get there. If they ever implement KEXEC_FILE or OF_FLATTREE support,
>> then (again, IMHO) the natural solution would be for them to name the
>> ELF header member the same way the other arches do.
>> And since no other architecture defines struct kimage_arch, those are
>> the only ones we need to consider.
>>
>
> Sounds good Thiago.
>
> I'll rename arm64 and ppc kimage_arch ELF address field to match that defined
> for x86/x64.
>
> Also, will add "fdt_size" param to of_kexec_alloc_and_setup_fdt(). For now, I'll
> use 2*fdt_totalsize(initial_boot_params) for ppc.
>
> Will send the updated patches shortly.
Sounds good. There will be a small conflict with powerpc/next because of
the patch I mentioned, but it's simple to fix by whoever merges the
series.
--
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center
