Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752886Ab3IQNBi (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Sep 2013 09:01:38 -0400 Received: from mail-qe0-f49.google.com ([209.85.128.49]:64821 "EHLO mail-qe0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752270Ab3IQNBh (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Sep 2013 09:01:37 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1379372965-22359-1-git-send-email-robherring2@gmail.com> <1379372965-22359-19-git-send-email-robherring2@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:01:36 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/28] of: create default early_init_dt_add_memory_arch From: Rob Herring To: Catalin Marinas Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , Will Deacon , James Hogan , Michal Simek , Jonas Bonn , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , "x86@kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au" , "linux@openrisc.net" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2329 Lines: 67 On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On 17 Sep 2013, at 00:09, Rob Herring wrote: >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c >> @@ -147,24 +147,6 @@ static void __init setup_machine_fdt(phys_addr_t dt_phys) >> pr_info("Machine: %s\n", machine_name); >> } >> >> -void __init early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size) >> -{ >> - base &= PAGE_MASK; >> - size &= PAGE_MASK; >> - if (base + size < PHYS_OFFSET) { >> - pr_warning("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n", >> - base, base + size); >> - return; >> - } >> - if (base < PHYS_OFFSET) { >> - pr_warning("Ignoring memory range 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n", >> - base, PHYS_OFFSET); >> - size -= PHYS_OFFSET - base; >> - base = PHYS_OFFSET; >> - } >> - memblock_add(base, size); >> -} >> - >> /* >> * Limit the memory size that was specified via FDT. >> */ > > ... > >> --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c >> +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c >> @@ -688,6 +688,17 @@ u64 __init dt_mem_next_cell(int s, __be32 **cellp) >> return of_read_number(p, s); >> } >> >> +void __init __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size) >> +{ >> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK >> + base &= PAGE_MASK; >> + size &= PAGE_MASK; >> + memblock_add(base, size); >> +#else >> + pr_err("%s: ignoring memory (%llx, %llx)\n", __func__, base, size); >> +#endif >> +} > > Are the arm64 changes equivalent here? There are some safety checks to > cope with the kernel being loaded at a higher offset than the > recommended one (PHYS_OFFSET calculated automatically). I tried to keep that, but PHYS_OFFSET is not universally defined. My reasoning is this range checking is hardly specific to an architecture. Perhaps if memory always starts at 0 you don't need it. If arm64 really needs these checks, then all architectures do. Perhaps "__virt_to_phys(PAGE_OFFSET)" instead of PHYS_OFFSET would work for all? Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/