> Am 30.06.2020 um 18:58 schrieb David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > >> >>> extern struct memblock memblock; >>> @@ -114,6 +110,19 @@ int memblock_remove(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); >>> int memblock_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); >>> int memblock_reserve(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); >>> #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_PHYS_MAP >>> +/** >>> + * for_each_physmem_range - iterate through physmem areas not included in type. >>> + * @i: u64 used as loop variable >>> + * @type: ptr to memblock_type which excludes from the iteration, can be %NULL >>> + * @p_start: ptr to phys_addr_t for start address of the range, can be %NULL >>> + * @p_end: ptr to phys_addr_t for end address of the range, can be %NULL >>> + */ >>> +#define for_each_physmem_range(i, type, p_start, p_end) \ >>> + for (i = 0, __next_physmem_range(&i, type, p_start, p_end); \ >>> + i != (u64)ULLONG_MAX; \ >>> + __next_physmem_range(&i, type, p_start, p_end)) >>> +void __next_physmem_range(u64 *idx, struct memblock_type *type, >>> + phys_addr_t *out_start, phys_addr_t *out_end); >> >> __next_physmem_range() is not really necessary, the >> for_each_physmem_range() macro can use __next_mem_range() directly, but >> I suspect it won't look nice :) >> >> Can you please make __next_physmem_range() static inline if we are to >> keep it? > > The thing is, then I have to expose "physmem" to something outside > memblock.c. That's what I wanted to avoid here. (instead, have a minimal > interface that is sufficient enough for this special case of physmem - > add memory during boot, walk memory after boot. Performance is not an > issue). ... but it might do with an extern declaration within the inline function. Will have a look tomorrow, thanks!
