On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:45:07AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 13:34:57 +0300
> Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jonathan,
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:04:49AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 18:59:18 +0300
> > > Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > All architecures use memblock for early memory management. There is no need
> > > > for the CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK configuration option.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Hi Mike,
> > >
> > > A minor editing issue in here that is stopping boot on arm64 platforms with latest
> > > version of the mm tree.
> >
> > Can you please try the following patch:
> >
> >
> > From 079bd5d24a01df3df9500d0a33d89cb9f7da4588 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 13:29:27 +0300
> > Subject: [PATCH] of/fdt: fixup #ifdefs after removal of HAVE_MEMBLOCK config
> > option
> >
> > The removal of HAVE_MEMBLOCK configuration option, mistakenly dropped the
> > wrong #endif. This patch restores that #endif and removes the part that
> > should have been actually removed, starting from #else and up to the
> > correct #endif
> >
> > Reported-by: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> That's identical to the local patch I'm carrying to fix this so looks good to me.
>
> For what it's worth given you'll probably fold this into the larger patch.
>
> Tested-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>
Well, this is up to Andrew now, as the broken patch is already in the -mm
tree.
> Thanks for the quick reply.
>
> Jonathan
>
> > ---
> > drivers/of/fdt.c | 21 +--------------------
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> > index 48314e9..bb532aa 100644
> > --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c
> > +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> > @@ -1119,6 +1119,7 @@ int __init early_init_dt_scan_chosen(unsigned long node, const char *uname,
> > #endif
> > #ifndef MAX_MEMBLOCK_ADDR
> > #define MAX_MEMBLOCK_ADDR ((phys_addr_t)~0)
> > +#endif
> >
> > void __init __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
> > {
> > @@ -1175,26 +1176,6 @@ int __init __weak early_init_dt_reserve_memory_arch(phys_addr_t base,
> > return memblock_reserve(base, size);
> > }
> >
> > -#else
> > -void __init __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
> > -{
> > - WARN_ON(1);
> > -}
> > -
> > -int __init __weak early_init_dt_mark_hotplug_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
> > -{
> > - return -ENOSYS;
> > -}
> > -
> > -int __init __weak early_init_dt_reserve_memory_arch(phys_addr_t base,
> > - phys_addr_t size, bool nomap)
> > -{
> > - pr_err("Reserved memory not supported, ignoring range %pa - %pa%s\n",
> > - &base, &size, nomap ? " (nomap)" : "");
> > - return -ENOSYS;
> > -}
> > -#endif
> > -
> > static void * __init early_init_dt_alloc_memory_arch(u64 size, u64 align)
> > {
> > return memblock_alloc(size, align);
>
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
