linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 18/28] of: create default early_init_dt_add_memory

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <DDB72C85-45A3-40FC-9108-7B56F6C5BC5B@arm.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 Sep 2013 09:46:52 +0100
From:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
	Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
	Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"microblaze-uclinux@...e.uq.edu.au" 
	<microblaze-uclinux@...e.uq.edu.au>,
	"linux@...nrisc.net" <linux@...nrisc.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/28] of: create default early_init_dt_add_memory_arch

On 17 Sep 2013, at 00:09, Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com> 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).

Catalin--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/