From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from phobos.denx.de (phobos.denx.de [85.214.62.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF296C3DA7A for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2023 20:23:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from h2850616.stratoserver.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 234C5853FD; Fri, 6 Jan 2023 21:23:06 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="db8Vaa6K"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by phobos.denx.de (Postfix, from userid 109) id AC186853EB; Fri, 6 Jan 2023 21:23:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [145.40.68.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 268E9853FD for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2023 21:23:02 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pali@kernel.org Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5C8CB81E5C; Fri, 6 Jan 2023 20:23:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 32D30C433EF; Fri, 6 Jan 2023 20:23:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1673036580; bh=EFXqVF6wEfsszlEm59AFtxFf1+C5tPTfuTWoXIIUIac=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=db8Vaa6KM8DoU/VZKVZFXyFNnKbygDOysxJaGbnkuDfsEHM8YnUPE2PhAjpEFlwKU zfIYE0e9gyXN3pjgxtJURv0Xzmeo0HTmSXWwaN0EQ5KBdqdr0dS7Pu9b06Q+EEvm9V qzq8gjietmPfIJZgsYJ0wmEvyxxqbV0zG0rHHvDaTTqdYZCM4em7NbgNFOSANkh4FY dBOzsy9gTlcojF1nOAcnEz0/2KZudoCiYnoyWy0JPRYJb3xAkWANiliavOyKK4xUxs fsQyWW4JF/X3lZ+MChAnCKfBCypfOYEO+ht9HJ7z3efOEDDXgTpwBTZSzXQ4Bq2ZPj 4HRQZx1+6XzSg== Received: by pali.im (Postfix) id F4000A3A; Fri, 6 Jan 2023 21:22:56 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2023 21:22:56 +0100 From: Pali =?utf-8?B?Um9ow6Fy?= To: Tom Rini Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de, Marek Vasut , Patrick Delaunay Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "common/memsize.c: Fix get_effective_memsize() to check for overflow" Message-ID: <20230106202256.bvjwcfsjbhzsfgrh@pali> References: <20230106155143.4025812-1-trini@konsulko.com> <20230106164543.3gtq73flpoocg7mc@pali> <20230106172524.GE3787616@bill-the-cat> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20230106172524.GE3787616@bill-the-cat> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 X-BeenThere: u-boot@lists.denx.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: U-Boot discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Sender: "U-Boot" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.6 at phobos.denx.de X-Virus-Status: Clean On Friday 06 January 2023 12:25:24 Tom Rini wrote: > On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 05:45:43PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: > > On Friday 06 January 2023 10:51:43 Tom Rini wrote: > > > This reverts commit 777aaaa706bcfe08c284aed06886db7d482af3f8. > > > > > > The changes to this generic function, which is intended to help with > > > 32bit platforms with large amounts of memory has unintended side effects > > > (which in turn lead to boot failures) on other platforms which were > > > previously functional. > > > > As mentioned previously, unfortunately this revert breaks 32-bit u-boot > > on 36-bit mpc85xx boards with 32-bit e500v2 cores and 4GB DDR module. > > > > Which platforms currently have broken u-boot without this revert? The > > only one which was reported is stm32mp but for it there different > > workaround patch waiting in the queue. > > Are you able to test on one of these PowerPC platforms currently? As > the stm32 problem shows, not everything is getting tested frequently > enough, so how many other cases are lurking out there. And, I think > overall issue is that the overflow check-and-change you introduce here > should just be in the CONFIG_MAX_MEM_MAPPED==true case. As that's the > case you're dealing with, yes? I was planning to do big retest again after all powerpc patches are reviewed and merged... Anyway, if the issue here is with ram_size and its reduction was needed for mpc85xx (at the time of introduction of that patch), what about putting mpc85xx ifdef around ram_size reduction? For arm boards it would have same behavior as revert of that commit and for mpc85xx it would be no change. I agree that this code needs to be revisited, together with ram_top issue and also code which fills DDR banks. Because really mapped memory for u-boot and real size of DDR are two different things here.