Hi Tom, On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 at 16:55, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 04:08:56PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 at 15:01, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 12:52:22PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > > > On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 at 12:53, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > With the move of the LMB structure to a persistent state, there is no > > > > > need to declare the variable locally, and pass it as part of the LMB > > > > > API's. Remove all local variable instances and change the API's > > > > > correspondingly. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> > > > > > --- > > > > > arch/arc/lib/cache.c | 4 +- > > > > > arch/arm/lib/stack.c | 4 +- > > > > > arch/arm/mach-apple/board.c | 17 ++- > > > > > arch/arm/mach-snapdragon/board.c | 17 ++- > > > > > arch/arm/mach-stm32mp/dram_init.c | 7 +- > > > > > arch/arm/mach-stm32mp/stm32mp1/cpu.c | 6 +- > > > > > arch/m68k/lib/bootm.c | 7 +- > > > > > arch/microblaze/lib/bootm.c | 4 +- > > > > > arch/mips/lib/bootm.c | 9 +- > > > > > arch/nios2/lib/bootm.c | 4 +- > > > > > arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/mp.c | 4 +- > > > > > arch/powerpc/include/asm/mp.h | 4 +- > > > > > arch/powerpc/lib/bootm.c | 14 +- > > > > > arch/riscv/lib/bootm.c | 4 +- > > > > > arch/sh/lib/bootm.c | 4 +- > > > > > arch/x86/lib/bootm.c | 4 +- > > > > > arch/xtensa/lib/bootm.c | 4 +- > > > > > board/xilinx/common/board.c | 7 +- > > > > > boot/bootm.c | 26 ++-- > > > > > boot/bootm_os.c | 5 +- > > > > > boot/image-board.c | 32 ++--- > > > > > boot/image-fdt.c | 29 ++--- > > > > > cmd/bdinfo.c | 6 +- > > > > > cmd/booti.c | 2 +- > > > > > cmd/bootz.c | 2 +- > > > > > cmd/load.c | 7 +- > > > > > drivers/iommu/apple_dart.c | 7 +- > > > > > drivers/iommu/sandbox_iommu.c | 15 +-- > > > > > fs/fs.c | 7 +- > > > > > include/image.h | 22 +--- > > > > > include/lmb.h | 39 +++--- > > > > > lib/lmb.c | 81 ++++++------ > > > > > net/tftp.c | 5 +- > > > > > net/wget.c | 5 +- > > > > > test/cmd/bdinfo.c | 2 +- > > > > > test/lib/lmb.c | 187 > > > > > +++++++++++++-------------- > > > > > 36 files changed, 270 insertions(+), 333 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > This isn't necessary...and it will make things harder. You can have a > > > > global 'lmb' while still allowing passing a different pointer when > > > > needed. > > > > > > There's only one reservation checking system and list of known > > > reservations, keep in mind. > > > > There is only one driver model, too, but we use a pointer. It makes > > tests much easier. > > > > In fact I see elsewhere in this series that it causes problems with > > tests. Best to use a pointer so it is easy to update. > > Maybe? I worry that will lead to thinking that we still, like today, > have many LMB lists, rather than a single LMB list that everyone must > use.
Do people worry about that with driver model? Also IMO there is only really one LMB list today. We create it at the start of bootm and then it is done when we boot. The file-loading stuff is what makes all this confusing...and with bootstd that is under control as well. At lot of this effort seems to be about dealing with random scripts which load things. We want to make sure we complain if something overlaps. But we should be making the bootstd case work nicely and doing things within that framework. Also EFI sort-of has its own thing, which it is very-much in control of. Overall I think this is a bit more subtle that just combining allocators. Regards, Simon
