On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 02:35:25 PDT (-0700), Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 10:26:31AM +0200, Alex Ghiti wrote:Hi Greg, Le 9/08/2021 à 12:42, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx a écrit : > > The patch below does not apply to the 5.13-stable tree. I don't know when stable was cc on this patch, this fixes something introduced in 5.14-rc1, so this is not normal it can't be applied. Sorry for the noise, Alex > If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm > tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit > id to <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>. > > thanks, > > greg k-h > > ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ > > From 6d7f91d914bc90a15ebc426440c26081337ceaa1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Alexandre Ghiti <alex@xxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 09:59:35 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] riscv: Get rid of CONFIG_PHYS_RAM_BASE in kernel physical > address conversion > > The usage of CONFIG_PHYS_RAM_BASE for all kernel types was a mistake: > this value is implementation-specific and this breaks the genericity of > the RISC-V kernel. > > Fix this by introducing a new variable phys_ram_base that holds this > value at runtime and use it in the kernel physical address conversion > macro. Since this value is used only for XIP kernels, evaluate it only if > CONFIG_XIP_KERNEL is set which in addition optimizes this macro for > standard kernels at compile-time. > > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alex@xxxxxxxx> > Tested-by: Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@xxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@xxxxxxxxxx> > Fixes: 44c922572952 ("RISC-V: enable XIP")But this commit id is in 5.13, is that incorrect?
I wasn't sure what to do here: IMO this fixes a bug that was there the whole time, it's just not one that actually manifests until the refactoring. I figured I'd put the farther back tag just to be safe, in case someone had picked up the feature (more likely a distro tree, but IIUC they're also looking here).
