On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote: > On 11/23/2011 10:47 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Suzuki K. Poulose <suz...@in.ibm.com> >> wrote: >>> The current implementation of CONFIG_RELOCATABLE in BookE is based >>> on mapping the page aligned kernel load address to KERNELBASE. This >>> approach however is not enough for platforms, where the TLB page size >>> is large (e.g, 256M on 44x). So we are renaming the RELOCATABLE used >>> currently in BookE to DYNAMIC_MEMSTART to reflect the actual method. > > Should reword the config help to make it clear what the alignment > restriction is, or where to find the information for a particular > platform. Someone reading "page aligned" without any context that we're > talking about special large pages is going to think 4K -- and on e500, > many large page sizes are supported, so the required alignment is found > in Linux init code rather than a CPU manual. > >>> >>> The CONFIG_RELOCATABLE for PPC32(BookE) based on processing of the >>> dynamic relocations will be introduced in the later in the patch series. >>> >>> This change would allow the use of the old method of RELOCATABLE for >>> platforms which can afford to enforce the page alignment (platforms with >>> smaller TLB size). >> >> I'm OK with the general direction, but this touches a lot of non-4xx >> code. I'd prefer it if Ben took this directly on whatever final >> solution is done. >> >>> I haven tested this change only on 440x. I don't have an FSL BookE to verify >>> the changes there. >>> >>> Scott, >>> Could you please test this patch on FSL and let me know the results ? >> >> Scott, did you ever get around to testing this? In my opinion, this >> shouldn't go in without a Tested-by: from someone that tried it on an >> FSL platform. > > Booted OK for me on e500v2 with RAM starting at 256M. > > Tested-by: Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> > >> We add DYNAMIC_MEMSTART for 32-bit, and we have RELOCATABLE for >> 64-bit. Then throughout almost the rest of the patch, all we're doing >> is duplicating what RELOCATABLE already did (e.g. if ! either thing). >> It works, but it is kind of ugly. >> >> Instead, could we define a helper config variable that can be used in >> place of that construct? Something like: >> >> config NONSTATIC_KERNEL (or whatever) >> bool >> default n >> >> ... >> >> config DYNAMIC_MEMSTART >> <blah> >> select NONSTATIC_KERNEL >> >> ... >> >> config RELOCATABLE >> <blah> >> select NONSTATIC_KERNEL > > I agree.
Suzie do you think you could respin this patch with the suggested changes and include Scott's Tested-by? The rest of the series looks fine and I'd like to get it included in my next branch. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev