On 17 Sep 2013, at 00:09, Rob Herring <robherri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -147,24 +147,6 @@ static void __init setup_machine_fdt(phys_addr_t dt_phys)
> pr_info("Machine: %s\n", machine_name);
> }
>
> -void __init early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
> -{
> - base &= PAGE_MASK;
> - size &= PAGE_MASK;
> - if (base + size < PHYS_OFFSET) {
> - pr_warning("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
> - base, base + size);
> - return;
> - }
> - if (base < PHYS_OFFSET) {
> - pr_warning("Ignoring memory range 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
> - base, PHYS_OFFSET);
> - size -= PHYS_OFFSET - base;
> - base = PHYS_OFFSET;
> - }
> - memblock_add(base, size);
> -}
> -
> /*
> * Limit the memory size that was specified via FDT.
> */
...
> --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> @@ -688,6 +688,17 @@ u64 __init dt_mem_next_cell(int s, __be32 **cellp)
> return of_read_number(p, s);
> }
>
> +void __init __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK
> + base &= PAGE_MASK;
> + size &= PAGE_MASK;
> + memblock_add(base, size);
> +#else
> + pr_err("%s: ignoring memory (%llx, %llx)\n", __func__, base, size);
> +#endif
> +}
Are the arm64 changes equivalent here? There are some safety checks to
cope with the kernel being loaded at a higher offset than the
recommended one (PHYS_OFFSET calculated automatically).
Catalin--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
