Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:29:21 +0000 | From | Conor Dooley <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] riscv: reserve DTB before possible memblock allocation |
| |
On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 11:23:31PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 06:17:22AM +0800, Woody Zhang wrote: > > Hi, Conor > > > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 07:17:28PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > > >+CC Alex, you should take a look at this patch. > > > > > >On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 09:35:19PM +0800, Woody Zhang wrote: > > >> It's possible that early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem() allocates memory > > >> from memblock for dynamic reserved memory in `/reserved-memory` node. > > >> Any fixed reservation must be done before that to avoid potential > > >> conflicts. > > >> > > >> Reserve the DTB in memblock just after early scanning it. > > > > > >The rationale makes sense to me, I am just wondering what compelling > > >reason there is to move it away from the memblock_reserve()s for the > > >initd and vmlinux? Moving it above early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem() > > >should be the sufficient minimum & would keep things together. > > > > IMO, moving it to parse_dtb() is more reasonable as early scanning and > > reservation are both subject to DTB. It can also lower the risk to > > mess up the sequence in the future. BTW, it's also invoked in > > setup_machine_fdt() in arm64. > > I'm fine with the change either way, so: > Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> > Mostly wanted to know whether you'd considered the minimal change.
What ever happened to this patch? [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |