| Message ID | 1440576391-25725-2-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:06:27AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > Override the __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch() with our own > version. We need this in a subsequent patch to make the handling of > the memory nodes conditional on whether we are booting via UEFI or > not. Worth clarifying that this is a direct copy? ("Our own version" can be read as there being modifications here.) > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> > --- > arch/arm64/mm/init.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c > index f5c0680d17d9..ab25fde7397c 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c > @@ -374,3 +374,44 @@ static int __init keepinitrd_setup(char *__unused) > > __setup("keepinitrd", keepinitrd_setup); > #endif > + > +void __init early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size) > +{ > + const u64 phys_offset = __pa(PAGE_OFFSET); > + > + if (!PAGE_ALIGNED(base)) { > + if (size < PAGE_SIZE - (base & ~PAGE_MASK)) { > + pr_warn("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n", > + base, base + size); > + return; > + } > + size -= PAGE_SIZE - (base & ~PAGE_MASK); > + base = PAGE_ALIGN(base); > + } > + size &= PAGE_MASK; > + > + if (base > MAX_MEMBLOCK_ADDR) { > + pr_warning("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n", > + base, base + size); > + return; > + } > + > + if (base + size - 1 > MAX_MEMBLOCK_ADDR) { > + pr_warning("Ignoring memory range 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n", > + ((u64)MAX_MEMBLOCK_ADDR) + 1, base + size); > + size = MAX_MEMBLOCK_ADDR - base + 1; > + } > + > + 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); > +} > -- > 1.9.1 Would it be too crazy to do this via an added call to a weak memblock_use_dt() function in the original instead, to avoid duplicating this entire function? We need the functionality for 4/5 (nice cleanup) and 5/5 (bugfix), so happy with whatever works. / Leif
On 26 August 2015 at 16:43, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:06:27AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> Override the __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch() with our own >> version. We need this in a subsequent patch to make the handling of >> the memory nodes conditional on whether we are booting via UEFI or >> not. > > Worth clarifying that this is a direct copy? > ("Our own version" can be read as there being modifications here.) > Yes. In fact, it wasn't before, so hence the choice of words here. >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> >> --- >> arch/arm64/mm/init.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c >> index f5c0680d17d9..ab25fde7397c 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c >> @@ -374,3 +374,44 @@ static int __init keepinitrd_setup(char *__unused) >> >> __setup("keepinitrd", keepinitrd_setup); >> #endif >> + >> +void __init early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size) >> +{ >> + const u64 phys_offset = __pa(PAGE_OFFSET); >> + >> + if (!PAGE_ALIGNED(base)) { >> + if (size < PAGE_SIZE - (base & ~PAGE_MASK)) { >> + pr_warn("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n", >> + base, base + size); >> + return; >> + } >> + size -= PAGE_SIZE - (base & ~PAGE_MASK); >> + base = PAGE_ALIGN(base); >> + } >> + size &= PAGE_MASK; >> + >> + if (base > MAX_MEMBLOCK_ADDR) { >> + pr_warning("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n", >> + base, base + size); >> + return; >> + } >> + >> + if (base + size - 1 > MAX_MEMBLOCK_ADDR) { >> + pr_warning("Ignoring memory range 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n", >> + ((u64)MAX_MEMBLOCK_ADDR) + 1, base + size); >> + size = MAX_MEMBLOCK_ADDR - base + 1; >> + } >> + >> + 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); >> +} >> -- >> 1.9.1 > > Would it be too crazy to do this via an added call to a weak > memblock_use_dt() function in the original instead, to avoid > duplicating this entire function? > This keeps coming up: I have a series in the freezer that decouples the kernel mapping from the linear mapping, which makes another round of changes to this function. So that is why I cloned the function in the first place, only to reuse this patch for this series as well. The following does the trick as well, but I am not sure if the alias attribute is allowed in the kernel """ diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c index ad87ce826cce..af2f30cbf357 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c @@ -374,3 +374,8 __setup("keepinitrd", keepinitrd_setup); #endif + +void __init early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size) +{ + __early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(base, size); +} diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c index 07496560e5b9..2da75619ed78 100644 --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c @@ -1047,6 +1047,9 } #endif +void __early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size) + __attribute__((alias("early_init_dt_add_memory_arch"))); + bool __init early_init_dt_verify(void *params) { if (!params) diff --git a/include/linux/of_fdt.h b/include/linux/of_fdt.h index df9ef3801812..64fcb143f5f4 100644 --- a/include/linux/of_fdt.h +++ b/include/linux/of_fdt.h @@ -66,6 +66,7 extern void early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem(void); extern void early_init_fdt_reserve_self(void); extern void early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size); +extern void __early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size); extern int early_init_dt_reserve_memory_arch(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size, bool no_map); extern void * early_init_dt_alloc_memory_arch(u64 size, u64 align); """ > We need the functionality for 4/5 (nice cleanup) and 5/5 (bugfix), so > happy with whatever works. > Indeed.
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c index f5c0680d17d9..ab25fde7397c 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c @@ -374,3 +374,44 @@ static int __init keepinitrd_setup(char *__unused) __setup("keepinitrd", keepinitrd_setup); #endif + +void __init early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size) +{ + const u64 phys_offset = __pa(PAGE_OFFSET); + + if (!PAGE_ALIGNED(base)) { + if (size < PAGE_SIZE - (base & ~PAGE_MASK)) { + pr_warn("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n", + base, base + size); + return; + } + size -= PAGE_SIZE - (base & ~PAGE_MASK); + base = PAGE_ALIGN(base); + } + size &= PAGE_MASK; + + if (base > MAX_MEMBLOCK_ADDR) { + pr_warning("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n", + base, base + size); + return; + } + + if (base + size - 1 > MAX_MEMBLOCK_ADDR) { + pr_warning("Ignoring memory range 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n", + ((u64)MAX_MEMBLOCK_ADDR) + 1, base + size); + size = MAX_MEMBLOCK_ADDR - base + 1; + } + + 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); +}
Override the __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch() with our own version. We need this in a subsequent patch to make the handling of the memory nodes conditional on whether we are booting via UEFI or not. Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> --- arch/arm64/mm/init.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+)