Hi Marek,
On Friday, 15 June 2018 15:00:31 EEST Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 06/15/2018 01:43 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On 06/15/2018 12:37 PM, Ulrich Hecht wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 12:09 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> >>>> + arm_smccc_smc(ARM_SMCCC_RENESAS_MEMCONF,
> >>>> + 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, &res);
> >>>
> >>> Will this call work on platforms without patched ATF ?
> >>> (I think not, don't you need to handle return value?)
> >>
> >> I have not actually tested that, but if I understand the ATF code
> >> correctly, unimplemented calls return
> >> SMC_UNK (0xffffffff), which should be handled by the default case (NOP)
> >> below.>
> > Which means the board has a memory size of 0 and fails to boot ?
> >
> >>>> + switch (res.a0) {
> >>>> + case 1:
> >>>> + base[0] = 0x048000000ULL;
> >>>> + size[0] = 0x038000000ULL;
> >>>> + base[1] = 0x500000000ULL;
> >>>> + size[1] = 0x040000000ULL;
> >>>> + base[2] = 0x600000000ULL;
> >>>> + size[2] = 0x040000000ULL;
> >>>> + base[3] = 0x700000000ULL;
> >>>> + size[3] = 0x040000000ULL;
> >>>> + fdt_fixup_memory_banks(blob, base, size, 4);
> >>>> + break;
> >>>> + case 2:
> >>>> + base[0] = 0x048000000ULL;
> >>>> + size[0] = 0x078000000ULL;
> >>>> + base[1] = 0x500000000ULL;
> >>>> + size[1] = 0x080000000ULL;
> >>>> + fdt_fixup_memory_banks(blob, base, size, 2);
> >>>> + break;
> >>>> + case 3:
> >>>> + base[0] = 0x048000000ULL;
> >>>> + size[0] = 0x078000000ULL;
> >>>> + base[1] = 0x500000000ULL;
> >>>> + size[1] = 0x080000000ULL;
> >>>> + base[2] = 0x600000000ULL;
> >>>> + size[2] = 0x080000000ULL;
> >>>> + base[3] = 0x700000000ULL;
> >>>> + size[3] = 0x080000000ULL;
> >>>> + fdt_fixup_memory_banks(blob, base, size, 4);
> >>>> + break;
> >>>
> >>> Obvious design question is -- since you're adding new SMC call anyway,
> >>> can't the call just return the memory layout table itself, so that it
> >>> won't be duplicated both in U-Boot and ATF ?
> >>
> >> My gut feeling was to go with the smallest interface possible.
> >
> > But this doesn't scale. The API here uses some ad-hoc constants to
> > identify memory layout tables which have to be encoded both in ATF and
> > U-Boot, both of which must be kept in sync.
> >
> > The ATF already has those memory layout tables, it's only a matter of
> > passing them to U-Boot. If you do just that, the ad-hoc constants and
> > encoding of tables into U-Boot goes away and in fact simplifies the
> > design.
> >
> > Yet, I have to wonder if ATF doesn't already contain some sort of
> > standard SMC call to get memory topology. It surprises me that it
> > wouldn't.
>
> In fact, Laurent (CCed) was solving some similar issue with lossy decomp
> and I think this involved some passing of memory layout information from
> ATF to U-Boot too, or am I mistaken ?
That's correct, ATF stores information about the memory layout at a fixed
address in system memory, and U-Boot can read it.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
