[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180725021255.GF12771@codeaurora.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 21:12:55 -0500
From: Richard Kuo <rkuo@...eaurora.org>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hexagon: switch to NO_BOOTMEM
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 08:47:04AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 04:23:39PM -0500, Richard Kuo wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:43:18AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > This patch adds registration of the system memory with memblock, eliminates
> > > bootmem initialization and converts early memory reservations from bootmem
> > > to memblock.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > Sorry for the delay, and thanks for this patch.
> >
> > I think the first memblock_reserve should use ARCH_PFN_OFFSET instead of
> > PHYS_OFFSET.
>
> memblock_reserve gets physical address rather than a pfn.
>
> If I read arch/hexagon/include/asm/mem-layout.h correctly, the PHYS_OFFSET
> *is* the physical address of the RAM and ARCH_PFN_OFFSET is the first pfn:
>
> #define PHYS_PFN_OFFSET (PHYS_OFFSET >> PAGE_SHIFT)
> #define ARCH_PFN_OFFSET PHYS_PFN_OFFSET
>
> Did I miss something?
Sorry, I should have been more clear. In the size calculation, it's
subtracting the unshifted PHYS_OFFSET from the start page number, which
I'm pretty sure is wrong.
Thanks,
Richard Kuo
--
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
Powered by blists - more mailing lists