Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 7 Jun 2023 23:23:31 +0100
From:   Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
To:     Woody Zhang <woodylab@foxmail.com>
Cc:     Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        alexghiti@rivosinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: reserve DTB before possible memblock allocation
Message-ID: <20230607-unruly-encore-e00661704b71@spud>
References: <tencent_B15C0F1F3105597D0DCE7DADC96C5EB5CF0A@qq.com>
 <20230607-jogging-grudging-70dede86bc53@spud>
 <tencent_79F42B5A66F98A65266F989EC9C86A69F005@qq.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="iroTKYY20BMB+hrX"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <tencent_79F42B5A66F98A65266F989EC9C86A69F005@qq.com>
Precedence: bulk


--iroTKYY20BMB+hrX
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 06:17:22AM +0800, Woody Zhang wrote:
> Hi, Conor
>=20
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 07:17:28PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> >+CC Alex, you should take a look at this patch.
> >
> >On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 09:35:19PM +0800, Woody Zhang wrote:
> >> It's possible that early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem() allocates memory
> >> from memblock for dynamic reserved memory in `/reserved-memory` node.
> >> Any fixed reservation must be done before that to avoid potential
> >> conflicts.
> >>=20
> >> Reserve the DTB in memblock just after early scanning it.
> >
> >The rationale makes sense to me, I am just wondering what compelling
> >reason there is to move it away from the memblock_reserve()s for the
> >initd and vmlinux? Moving it above early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem()
> >should be the sufficient minimum & would keep things together.
>=20
> IMO, moving it to parse_dtb() is more reasonable as early scanning and
> reservation are both subject to DTB. It can also lower the risk to
> mess up the sequence in the future. BTW, it's also invoked in
> setup_machine_fdt() in arm64.

I'm fine with the change either way, so:
Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
Mostly wanted to know whether you'd considered the minimal change.

Cheers,
Conor.

--iroTKYY20BMB+hrX
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYIAB0WIQRh246EGq/8RLhDjO14tDGHoIJi0gUCZIEDYwAKCRB4tDGHoIJi
0qaSAP9p8WmnDgqGTpmUYr2HQW4T7TMTPFK2n+EWI1gMRejlQQD/b640SeGyJ73C
iIcpx6Qh2bBLuteKWiwmHGemZvXGBAE=
=Xh0P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--iroTKYY20BMB+hrX--