From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tomas Hlavacek <tmshlvck@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:16:40 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v8] [RFC] early_malloc for DM added.
In-Reply-To: <201209240111.57287.marex@denx.de>
References: <1346069529-27397-1-git-send-email-tmshlvck@gmail.com>
	<1348416940-20319-1-git-send-email-tmshlvck@gmail.com>
	<201209240111.57287.marex@denx.de>
Message-ID: <CAEB7QLCgLJr4pEZDRooUrDjfikxyk-STE9n3XW_EQSP_j4qYrA@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Hello Marek,

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
> Dear Tomas Hlavacek,
>
> [..]
>> +
>> +     if (early_malloc_active()) {
>> +             addr = early_malloc(size);
>> +             for (i=0; i<size; i++)
>> +                     addr[i] = 0;
>
> memset() ?

Yes, sure. Thanks.

>
>> +
>> +             return addr;
>> +     }
>> +#endif /* CONFIG_SYS_EARLY_MALLOC */
>> +     return calloc(n, elem_size);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void *dmrealloc(void *oldmem, size_t bytes)
>> +{
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SYS_EARLY_MALLOC
>> +     if (early_malloc_active())
>> +             return NULL;
>
> I wonder how should this be implemented ... maybe early_malloc + standard
> memcpy()

How do you want me to fix all the pointers to the memcpyied part of
heap then? I think this will not work unless I make some reservations
for eventual growth for each and every early_mallocated area. And I
think this is not good idea at all for early_malloc.

I think there are two straight-forward possibilities: a) keep the
empty implementation of dmrealloc() in early stage and avoid using it
in code which might run in early stage, but retain the dm* version of
the symbol. b) remove the dmrealloc() entirely which may have certain
negative consequences, because it might be tempting to mix dmmalloc()
and (non-dm*) realloc() calls which is obviously wrong.

Tomas