linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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
>>

  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).