On 06/27/2014 01:12 AM, Laura Abbott wrote:
>
> +static unsigned int bank_cnt;
> +static unsigned int max_cnt;
> +
> int __init arm_add_memory(u64 start, u64 size)
> {
> u64 aligned_start;
>
> /*
> + * Some buggy bootloaders rely on the old meminfo behavior of not adding
> + * more than n banks since anything past that may contain invalid data.
> + */
> + if (bank_cnt >= max_cnt) {
> + pr_crit("Max banks too low, ignoring memory at 0x%08llx\n",
> + (long long)start);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + bank_cnt++;
> +
> + /*
> * Ensure that start/size are aligned to a page boundary.
> * Size is appropriately rounded down, start is rounded up.
> */
> @@ -879,6 +894,7 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
> mdesc = setup_machine_tags(__atags_pointer, __machine_arch_type);
> machine_desc = mdesc;
> machine_name = mdesc->name;
> + max_cnt = mdesc->bank_limit;
arm_add_memory is getting called before this is being set, resulting in
none of the memory banks getting added[1].
setup_machine_fdt -> early_init_dt_scan -> early_init_dt_scan_memory
Would it make sense to re-introduce the config option ARM_NR_BANKS and
replace max_cnt with NR_BANKS?
[1] http://pastebin.com/MawYD7kb
>
> if (mdesc->reboot_mode != REBOOT_HARD)
> reboot_mode = mdesc->reboot_mode;
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> index f38cf7c..91283fd 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> @@ -350,4 +350,5 @@ DT_MACHINE_START(EXYNOS_DT, "SAMSUNG EXYNOS (Flattened Device Tree)")
> .dt_compat = exynos_dt_compat,
> .restart = exynos_restart,
> .reserve = exynos_reserve,
> + .bank_limit = 8,
> MACHINE_END
>
--
Tushar Behera
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
