Hi Michal,
>>
@@ -440,6 +431,26 @@ int __init process_shm_node(const void *fdt, int
node, uint32_t address_cells,
device_tree_get_reg(, address_cells, address_cells, ,
);
size = dt_next_cell(size_cells, );
+if ( !IS_ALIGNED(paddr, PAGE_SIZE)
On 07/05/2024 15:44, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>
>
> Hi Michal,
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
>> On 6 May 2024, at 14:24, Michal Orzel wrote:
>>
>> Hi Luca,
>>
>> On 23/04/2024 10:25, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The current static shared memory code is using bootinfo banks when it
>>>
Hi Michal,
Thanks for your review.
> On 6 May 2024, at 14:24, Michal Orzel wrote:
>
> Hi Luca,
>
> On 23/04/2024 10:25, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>
>>
>> The current static shared memory code is using bootinfo banks when it
>> needs to find the number of borrower, so every time
Hi Luca,
On 23/04/2024 10:25, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>
>
> The current static shared memory code is using bootinfo banks when it
> needs to find the number of borrower, so every time assign_shared_memory
s/borrower/borrowers
> is called, the bank is searched in the bootinfo.shmem structure.
>
>
The current static shared memory code is using bootinfo banks when it
needs to find the number of borrower, so every time assign_shared_memory
is called, the bank is searched in the bootinfo.shmem structure.
There is nothing wrong with it, however the bank can be used also to
retrieve the start
