On 6/26/2014 8:06 PM, Tushar Behera wrote:
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
I was hoping to avoid re-introducing the config option but that may be the case if we can't make the machine_info work. I'll take a better look tomorrow. Thanks, Laura -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- 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
