On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >> On 12 February 2016 at 14:27, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote: >>> From: Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com> >>> >>> Purely by code inspection, it looks like the parameter order to memalign() >>> is swapped; its parameters are (align, size). 4096 is a likely desired >>> alignment, and a variable named size sounds like a size:-) >>> >>> Fixes: 45b5a37836d5 ("x86: Add multi-processor init") >>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com> >>> --- >>> I've taken a quick look at all the other memalign() calls in U-Boot, and >>> I /think/ they're all correct. >>> --- >>> arch/x86/cpu/mp_init.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/cpu/mp_init.c b/arch/x86/cpu/mp_init.c >>> index 7917350bff26..fc2fb5bf445c 100644 >>> --- a/arch/x86/cpu/mp_init.c >>> +++ b/arch/x86/cpu/mp_init.c >>> @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ static int load_sipi_vector(atomic_t **ap_countp, int >>> num_cpus) >>> >>> params->stack_size = CONFIG_AP_STACK_SIZE; >>> size = params->stack_size * num_cpus; >>> - stack = memalign(size, 4096); >>> + stack = memalign(4096, size); >>> if (!stack) >>> return -ENOMEM; >>> params->stack_top = (u32)(stack + size); >>> -- >>> 2.7.0 >>> >> >> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> >> >> Thanks. I'm a little surprised this hasn't caused problems with CPU >> start-up! > > Tested on QEMU > Tested-by: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com>
applied to u-boot-x86/master, thanks! _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot