hi Simon, On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 at 17:09, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi Sughosh, > > On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 at 10:27, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > hi Simon, > > > > On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 at 20:45, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 at 08:36, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Allow for resizing of LMB regions if the region attributes match. The > > > > current code returns a failure status on detecting an overlapping > > > > address. This worked up until now since the LMB calls were not > > > > persistent and global -- the LMB memory map was specific and private > > > > to a given caller of the LMB API's. > > > > > > > > With the change in the LMB code to make the LMB reservations > > > > persistent, there needs to be a check on whether the memory region can > > > > be resized, and then do it if so. To distinguish between memory that > > > > cannot be resized, add a new flag, LMB_NOOVERWRITE. Reserving a region > > > > of memory with this attribute would indicate that the region cannot be > > > > resized. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> > > > > --- > > > > Changes since V1: > > > > * Do the check for the region flags in lmb_resize_regions() and > > > > lmb_merge_overlap_regions() to decide on merging the overlapping > > > > regions. > > > > > > > > include/lmb.h | 1 + > > > > lib/lmb.c | 116 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > > > > 2 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/lmb.h b/include/lmb.h > > > > index 069c6af2a3..99fcf5781f 100644 > > > > --- a/include/lmb.h > > > > +++ b/include/lmb.h > > > > @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ > > > > enum lmb_flags { > > > > LMB_NONE = 0x0, > > > > LMB_NOMAP = 0x4, > > > > + LMB_NOOVERWRITE = 0x8, > > > > > > How about LMB_PERSIST ? > > > > Isn't LMB_NOOVERWRITE more suitable here ? I mean this is indicating > > that the said region of memory is not to be re-used/re-requested. > > > > > > > > These could be adjusted to use BIT() > > > > I am changing these to use the BIT macro in a subsequent commit. > > Yes, I saw that later and forgot to remove this. Normally we make > refactoring changes before adding new code, though.
Okay, I will bring in that patch earlier in the series. -sughosh > [..] > > Regards, > Simon