All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steve Capper <steve.capper@arm.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@arm.com>,
	David Daney <ddaney.cavm@gmail.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>,
	Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gkulkarni@caviumnetworks.com>,
	Robert Richter <rrichter@cavium.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 1/6] efi: ARM/arm64: ignore DT memory nodes instead of removing them
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:09:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160414120929.GA15967@e103986-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu_aed0N9hiopY_=9P_y1rZ8ou6ofuHKdkXJnY=v1Gzh_w@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 01:10:35PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 14 April 2016 at 13:02, Steve Capper <steve.capper@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:50:23PM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> >> From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> >>
> >> There are two problems with the UEFI stub DT memory node removal
> >> routine:
> >> - it deletes nodes as it traverses the tree, which happens to work
> >>   but is not supported, as deletion invalidates the node iterator;
> >> - deleting memory nodes entirely may discard annotations in the form
> >>   of additional properties on the nodes.
> >>
> >> Since the discovery of DT memory nodes occurs strictly before the
> >> UEFI init sequence, we can simply clear the memblock memory table
> >> before parsing the UEFI memory map. This way, it is no longer
> >> necessary to remove the nodes, so we can remove that logic from the
> >> stub as well.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c    |  8 ++++++++
> >>  drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c | 24 +-----------------------
> >>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c
> >> index aa1f743..5d6945b 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c
> >> @@ -143,6 +143,14 @@ static __init void reserve_regions(void)
> >>       if (efi_enabled(EFI_DBG))
> >>               pr_info("Processing EFI memory map:\n");
> >>
> >> +     /*
> >> +      * Discard memblocks discovered so far: if there are any at this
> >> +      * point, they originate from memory nodes in the DT, and UEFI
> >> +      * uses its own memory map instead.
> >> +      */
> >> +     memblock_dump_all();
> >> +     memblock_remove(0, ULLONG_MAX);
> >> +
> >
> > Does this change need to be applied to any other architectures given
> > that deletion code has been removed from libstub below?
> >
> 
> The 'generic' libstub code below is only used by ARM, so we're safe
> here in that regard.

Thanks Ard,
In that case, FWIW:
Acked-by: Steve Capper <steve.capper@arm.com>

Cheers,
-- 
Steve

> 
> 
> >>       for_each_efi_memory_desc(&memmap, md) {
> >>               paddr = md->phys_addr;
> >>               npages = md->num_pages;
> >> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c
> >> index 6dba78a..e58abfa 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c
> >> @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ efi_status_t update_fdt(efi_system_table_t *sys_table, void *orig_fdt,
> >>                       unsigned long map_size, unsigned long desc_size,
> >>                       u32 desc_ver)
> >>  {
> >> -     int node, prev, num_rsv;
> >> +     int node, num_rsv;
> >>       int status;
> >>       u32 fdt_val32;
> >>       u64 fdt_val64;
> >> @@ -54,28 +54,6 @@ efi_status_t update_fdt(efi_system_table_t *sys_table, void *orig_fdt,
> >>               goto fdt_set_fail;
> >>
> >>       /*
> >> -      * Delete any memory nodes present. We must delete nodes which
> >> -      * early_init_dt_scan_memory may try to use.
> >> -      */
> >> -     prev = 0;
> >> -     for (;;) {
> >> -             const char *type;
> >> -             int len;
> >> -
> >> -             node = fdt_next_node(fdt, prev, NULL);
> >> -             if (node < 0)
> >> -                     break;
> >> -
> >> -             type = fdt_getprop(fdt, node, "device_type", &len);
> >> -             if (type && strncmp(type, "memory", len) == 0) {
> >> -                     fdt_del_node(fdt, node);
> >> -                     continue;
> >> -             }
> >> -
> >> -             prev = node;
> >> -     }
> >> -
> >> -     /*
> >>        * Delete all memory reserve map entries. When booting via UEFI,
> >>        * kernel will use the UEFI memory map to find reserved regions.
> >>        */
> >> --
> >> 1.8.3.1
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> >> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> >>
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Steve Capper <steve.capper-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
	David Daney <ddaney.cavm-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
	Frank Rowand
	<frowand.list-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
	Grant Likely
	<grant.likely-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
	Ian Campbell
	<ijc+devicetree-KcIKpvwj1kUDXYZnReoRVg@public.gmane.org>,
	Kumar Gala <galak-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org>,
	Ganapatrao Kulkarni
	<gkulkarni-M3mlKVOIwJVv6pq1l3V1OdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>,
	Robert Richter <rrichter-YGCgFSpz5w/QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
	Matt Fleming
	<matt-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
	"devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
	<devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	"linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
	<linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	"linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
	<linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	David Daney <david.daney-YGCgFSpz5w/QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 1/6] efi: ARM/arm64: ignore DT memory nodes instead of removing them
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:09:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160414120929.GA15967@e103986-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu_aed0N9hiopY_=9P_y1rZ8ou6ofuHKdkXJnY=v1Gzh_w-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 01:10:35PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 14 April 2016 at 13:02, Steve Capper <steve.capper-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:50:23PM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> >> From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> >>
> >> There are two problems with the UEFI stub DT memory node removal
> >> routine:
> >> - it deletes nodes as it traverses the tree, which happens to work
> >>   but is not supported, as deletion invalidates the node iterator;
> >> - deleting memory nodes entirely may discard annotations in the form
> >>   of additional properties on the nodes.
> >>
> >> Since the discovery of DT memory nodes occurs strictly before the
> >> UEFI init sequence, we can simply clear the memblock memory table
> >> before parsing the UEFI memory map. This way, it is no longer
> >> necessary to remove the nodes, so we can remove that logic from the
> >> stub as well.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: David Daney <david.daney-YGCgFSpz5w/QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c    |  8 ++++++++
> >>  drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c | 24 +-----------------------
> >>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c
> >> index aa1f743..5d6945b 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c
> >> @@ -143,6 +143,14 @@ static __init void reserve_regions(void)
> >>       if (efi_enabled(EFI_DBG))
> >>               pr_info("Processing EFI memory map:\n");
> >>
> >> +     /*
> >> +      * Discard memblocks discovered so far: if there are any at this
> >> +      * point, they originate from memory nodes in the DT, and UEFI
> >> +      * uses its own memory map instead.
> >> +      */
> >> +     memblock_dump_all();
> >> +     memblock_remove(0, ULLONG_MAX);
> >> +
> >
> > Does this change need to be applied to any other architectures given
> > that deletion code has been removed from libstub below?
> >
> 
> The 'generic' libstub code below is only used by ARM, so we're safe
> here in that regard.

Thanks Ard,
In that case, FWIW:
Acked-by: Steve Capper <steve.capper-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>

Cheers,
-- 
Steve

> 
> 
> >>       for_each_efi_memory_desc(&memmap, md) {
> >>               paddr = md->phys_addr;
> >>               npages = md->num_pages;
> >> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c
> >> index 6dba78a..e58abfa 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c
> >> @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ efi_status_t update_fdt(efi_system_table_t *sys_table, void *orig_fdt,
> >>                       unsigned long map_size, unsigned long desc_size,
> >>                       u32 desc_ver)
> >>  {
> >> -     int node, prev, num_rsv;
> >> +     int node, num_rsv;
> >>       int status;
> >>       u32 fdt_val32;
> >>       u64 fdt_val64;
> >> @@ -54,28 +54,6 @@ efi_status_t update_fdt(efi_system_table_t *sys_table, void *orig_fdt,
> >>               goto fdt_set_fail;
> >>
> >>       /*
> >> -      * Delete any memory nodes present. We must delete nodes which
> >> -      * early_init_dt_scan_memory may try to use.
> >> -      */
> >> -     prev = 0;
> >> -     for (;;) {
> >> -             const char *type;
> >> -             int len;
> >> -
> >> -             node = fdt_next_node(fdt, prev, NULL);
> >> -             if (node < 0)
> >> -                     break;
> >> -
> >> -             type = fdt_getprop(fdt, node, "device_type", &len);
> >> -             if (type && strncmp(type, "memory", len) == 0) {
> >> -                     fdt_del_node(fdt, node);
> >> -                     continue;
> >> -             }
> >> -
> >> -             prev = node;
> >> -     }
> >> -
> >> -     /*
> >>        * Delete all memory reserve map entries. When booting via UEFI,
> >>        * kernel will use the UEFI memory map to find reserved regions.
> >>        */
> >> --
> >> 1.8.3.1
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> >> linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
> >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> >>
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: steve.capper@arm.com (Steve Capper)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v16 1/6] efi: ARM/arm64: ignore DT memory nodes instead of removing them
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:09:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160414120929.GA15967@e103986-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu_aed0N9hiopY_=9P_y1rZ8ou6ofuHKdkXJnY=v1Gzh_w@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 01:10:35PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 14 April 2016 at 13:02, Steve Capper <steve.capper@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:50:23PM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> >> From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> >>
> >> There are two problems with the UEFI stub DT memory node removal
> >> routine:
> >> - it deletes nodes as it traverses the tree, which happens to work
> >>   but is not supported, as deletion invalidates the node iterator;
> >> - deleting memory nodes entirely may discard annotations in the form
> >>   of additional properties on the nodes.
> >>
> >> Since the discovery of DT memory nodes occurs strictly before the
> >> UEFI init sequence, we can simply clear the memblock memory table
> >> before parsing the UEFI memory map. This way, it is no longer
> >> necessary to remove the nodes, so we can remove that logic from the
> >> stub as well.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c    |  8 ++++++++
> >>  drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c | 24 +-----------------------
> >>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c
> >> index aa1f743..5d6945b 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c
> >> @@ -143,6 +143,14 @@ static __init void reserve_regions(void)
> >>       if (efi_enabled(EFI_DBG))
> >>               pr_info("Processing EFI memory map:\n");
> >>
> >> +     /*
> >> +      * Discard memblocks discovered so far: if there are any at this
> >> +      * point, they originate from memory nodes in the DT, and UEFI
> >> +      * uses its own memory map instead.
> >> +      */
> >> +     memblock_dump_all();
> >> +     memblock_remove(0, ULLONG_MAX);
> >> +
> >
> > Does this change need to be applied to any other architectures given
> > that deletion code has been removed from libstub below?
> >
> 
> The 'generic' libstub code below is only used by ARM, so we're safe
> here in that regard.

Thanks Ard,
In that case, FWIW:
Acked-by: Steve Capper <steve.capper@arm.com>

Cheers,
-- 
Steve

> 
> 
> >>       for_each_efi_memory_desc(&memmap, md) {
> >>               paddr = md->phys_addr;
> >>               npages = md->num_pages;
> >> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c
> >> index 6dba78a..e58abfa 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c
> >> @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ efi_status_t update_fdt(efi_system_table_t *sys_table, void *orig_fdt,
> >>                       unsigned long map_size, unsigned long desc_size,
> >>                       u32 desc_ver)
> >>  {
> >> -     int node, prev, num_rsv;
> >> +     int node, num_rsv;
> >>       int status;
> >>       u32 fdt_val32;
> >>       u64 fdt_val64;
> >> @@ -54,28 +54,6 @@ efi_status_t update_fdt(efi_system_table_t *sys_table, void *orig_fdt,
> >>               goto fdt_set_fail;
> >>
> >>       /*
> >> -      * Delete any memory nodes present. We must delete nodes which
> >> -      * early_init_dt_scan_memory may try to use.
> >> -      */
> >> -     prev = 0;
> >> -     for (;;) {
> >> -             const char *type;
> >> -             int len;
> >> -
> >> -             node = fdt_next_node(fdt, prev, NULL);
> >> -             if (node < 0)
> >> -                     break;
> >> -
> >> -             type = fdt_getprop(fdt, node, "device_type", &len);
> >> -             if (type && strncmp(type, "memory", len) == 0) {
> >> -                     fdt_del_node(fdt, node);
> >> -                     continue;
> >> -             }
> >> -
> >> -             prev = node;
> >> -     }
> >> -
> >> -     /*
> >>        * Delete all memory reserve map entries. When booting via UEFI,
> >>        * kernel will use the UEFI memory map to find reserved regions.
> >>        */
> >> --
> >> 1.8.3.1
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> >> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> >>
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2016-04-14 12:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-04-08 22:50 [PATCH v16 0/6] arm64, numa: Add numa support for arm64 platforms David Daney
2016-04-08 22:50 ` David Daney
2016-04-08 22:50 ` David Daney
2016-04-08 22:50 ` [PATCH v16 1/6] efi: ARM/arm64: ignore DT memory nodes instead of removing them David Daney
2016-04-08 22:50   ` David Daney
2016-04-08 22:50   ` David Daney
2016-04-14 11:02   ` Steve Capper
2016-04-14 11:02     ` Steve Capper
2016-04-14 11:02     ` Steve Capper
2016-04-14 11:10     ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-04-14 11:10       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-04-14 11:10       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-04-14 12:09       ` Steve Capper [this message]
2016-04-14 12:09         ` Steve Capper
2016-04-14 12:09         ` Steve Capper
2016-04-15 14:03   ` Will Deacon
2016-04-15 14:03     ` Will Deacon
2016-04-15 14:03     ` Will Deacon
2016-04-15 14:06     ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-04-15 14:06       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-04-15 14:06       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-04-15 14:08       ` Matt Fleming
2016-04-15 14:08         ` Matt Fleming
2016-04-15 14:08         ` Matt Fleming
2016-04-15 14:08       ` Will Deacon
2016-04-15 14:08         ` Will Deacon
2016-04-15 14:08         ` Will Deacon
2016-04-08 22:50 ` [PATCH v16 2/6] Documentation, dt, numa: dt bindings for NUMA David Daney
2016-04-08 22:50   ` David Daney
2016-04-08 22:50   ` David Daney
2016-04-08 22:50 ` [PATCH v16 3/6] of, numa: Add NUMA of binding implementation David Daney
2016-04-08 22:50   ` David Daney
2016-04-08 22:50 ` [PATCH v16 4/6] arm64: Move unflatten_device_tree() call earlier David Daney
2016-04-08 22:50   ` David Daney
2016-04-08 22:50   ` David Daney
2016-04-08 22:50 ` [PATCH v16 5/6] arm64, numa: Add NUMA support for arm64 platforms David Daney
2016-04-08 22:50   ` David Daney
2016-04-08 22:50   ` David Daney
2016-04-08 22:50 ` [PATCH v16 6/6] arm64, mm, numa: Add NUMA balancing support for arm64 David Daney
2016-04-08 22:50   ` David Daney
2016-04-13 15:59   ` Steve Capper
2016-04-13 15:59     ` Steve Capper

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160414120929.GA15967@e103986-lin \
    --to=steve.capper@arm.com \
    --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=david.daney@cavium.com \
    --cc=ddaney.cavm@gmail.com \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=frowand.list@gmail.com \
    --cc=galak@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=gkulkarni@caviumnetworks.com \
    --cc=grant.likely@linaro.org \
    --cc=ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
    --cc=pawel.moll@arm.com \
    --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=rrichter@cavium.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.