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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D1A0C10F14 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 04:58:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A5ED222C2 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 04:58:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=ozlabs.org header.i=@ozlabs.org header.b="k1fDAKE4" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0A5ED222C2 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46kLP24fVKzDqXQ for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 14:58:14 +1000 (AEST) Received: from ozlabs.org (bilbo.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46kLM8340QzDqNd for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 14:56:36 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=ozlabs.org header.i=@ozlabs.org header.b="k1fDAKE4"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix) id 46kLM801skz9sP7; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 14:56:36 +1000 (AEST) Received: from authenticated.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46kLM73d8wz9sDB; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 14:56:35 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ozlabs.org; s=201707; t=1570078595; bh=qhDUhDuCBFjKQcZU9feovNiFJNnMvJ9m84ZHR1oekWc=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=k1fDAKE4KlC+fzWckfxTRD0v6B9hjHhiKJ0WuCvKvE5NvgMaLcPFioR5FHeijo5tC j/uYfNAymQhSD0taEfnQtIO2B9MyNTJKGLc2Jh7hC9tmAEoqHknLsjyB8yvBewzxMI kgz3EN6g/IS4I9TnEqsjfQYZN6ZgWVqLneykHuKHv2xBvWBJl+xYIaBwSW12NmqigJ QEVLOJxEpclq81qLgJmNRp/09/M+zBfVsu3uz/u2Z9quB5aWKad/+YXg9aiXiZVCgj MMjPFFhVtllEJBwcMrf4A7+Sl2CbRfMyIaI3NjG0skzNnXk3lTfOy6A/eAfurgX0VG Y5WRQFD3LZqEQ== Message-ID: <049794f6a16f548bcb418d31fecf268cb4a335e5.camel@ozlabs.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/powernv/prd: Validate whether address to be mapped is part of system RAM From: Jeremy Kerr To: Vasant Hegde , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2019 12:56:34 +0800 In-Reply-To: <0e8a4057-fbe7-9b1a-6613-ad500ebe8b67@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20191002074856.15014-1-hegdevasant@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <2bb75b409a1159d5524be2d661e548e32fed152e.camel@ozlabs.org> <0e8a4057-fbe7-9b1a-6613-ad500ebe8b67@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5-1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan , "Aneesh Kumar K . V" Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Hi Vasant, > Correct. We will have `ibm,prd-label` property. That's not the issue. It sure sounds like the issue - someone has represented a range that should be mapped by HBRT, but isn't appropriate for mapping by HBRT. > Here issueis HBRT is loaded into NVDIMM memory. OK. How about we just don't do that? It sounds like we're just trying to work around an invalid representation of the mappings. Cheers, Jeremy