From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
To: Steve Capper <steve.capper@arm.com>
Cc: 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 13:10:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu_aed0N9hiopY_=9P_y1rZ8ou6ofuHKdkXJnY=v1Gzh_w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160414110210.GA11788@e103986-lin>
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.
>> 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
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-14 11:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ 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 ` [PATCH v16 1/6] efi: ARM/arm64: ignore DT memory nodes instead of removing them David Daney
2016-04-14 11:02 ` Steve Capper
2016-04-14 11:10 ` Ard Biesheuvel [this message]
2016-04-14 12:09 ` Steve Capper
2016-04-15 14:03 ` Will Deacon
2016-04-15 14:06 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-04-15 14:08 ` Matt Fleming
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 ` [PATCH v16 3/6] of, numa: Add NUMA of binding implementation 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 ` [PATCH v16 5/6] arm64, numa: Add NUMA support for arm64 platforms David Daney
2016-04-08 22:50 ` [PATCH v16 6/6] arm64, mm, numa: Add NUMA balancing support for arm64 David Daney
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='CAKv+Gu_aed0N9hiopY_=9P_y1rZ8ou6ofuHKdkXJnY=v1Gzh_w@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=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=steve.capper@arm.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).