linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: agatti: Address Gunyah memory alignment needs

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: <aV-L81f5NQg4leu8@sumit-xelite>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2026 16:20:27 +0530
From: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...nel.org>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, konradybcio@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org,
	krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, akhilpo@....qualcomm.com,
	vikash.garodia@....qualcomm.com, dikshita.agarwal@....qualcomm.com,
	robin.clark@....qualcomm.com, lumag@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@....qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: agatti: Address Gunyah memory
 alignment needs

On Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 12:29:02PM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 1/5/26 6:46 AM, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 03, 2026 at 09:49:04AM -0600, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 12:42:58PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> >>> From: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@....qualcomm.com>
> >>>
> >>> Gunyah hypervisor requires it's memory start address to be 2MB aligned.
> >>> So the address map for Agatti is updated to incorporate that requirement.
> >>> This should be a backwards compatible DT change which should work with
> >>> legacy QHEE based firmware stack too.
> >>>
> >>
> >> How come this isn't conveyed to the operating system using the UEFI
> >> memory map?
> >>
> > 
> > I agree that with EFI boot, the information is getting conveyed via EFI
> > memory map. But there will be non-EFI boot scenarios as well in case of
> > U-Boot. And moreover I suppose we need to keep the reserved memory
> > ranges in DT updated to reflect the actual memory map.
> 
> Can U-Boot not do the same by altering /reserved-memory or /memory/reg?

I suppose you are referring to DT fixups here, we generally try to keep
them to a minimum required in U-Boot.

BTW, don't we want to keep reserved memory ranges updated in DT? Or we plan
to drop them altogether?

-Sumit