[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54AE9E27.2050307@nexus-software.ie>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 15:11:35 +0000
From: Bryan O'Donoghue <pure.logic@...us-software.ie>
To: "Ong, Boon Leong" <boon.leong.ong@...el.com>
CC: "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"dvhart@...radead.org" <dvhart@...radead.org>,
"platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org"
<platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"andy.shevchenko@...il.com" <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Add Isolated Memory Regions for Quark X1000
> Suggest to split the imr_del() into 2 functions:-
> (1) by address + size
> (2) by IMR index
> At current implementation, it does not support (2) only because it fails at
> imr_check_range().
Hi Boon Leong.
I'll have a think about that :)
Just on imr_del() though, it does support removal by way of index.
+static void __init intel_galileo_imr_init(void)
+{
+ unsigned long base = virt_to_phys(&_text);
+ unsigned long size = virt_to_phys(&_sinittext) - base - IMR_ALIGN;
+ int i, ret;
+
+ /* Tear down all existing unlocked IMRs */
+ for (i = 0; i <= QUARK_X1000_IMR_NUM; i++)
+ imr_del(i, 0, 0);
That's what the platform code has to do for every unlocked IMR, to make
sure there are no stale IMRs left that could conflict with the EFI
memory map !
--
BOD
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists