Hi Sughosh, On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 01:50, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 at 05:02, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 00:03, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > The current LMB API's for allocating and reserving memory use a > > > per-caller based memory view. Memory allocated by a caller can then be > > > overwritten by another caller. Make these allocations and reservations > > > persistent using the alloced list data structure. > > > > > > Two alloced lists are declared -- one for the available(free) memory, > > > and one for the used memory. Once full, the list can then be extended > > > at runtime. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> > > > --- > > > Changes since rfc: > > > * Squash patches 9 - 11, 13 from the rfc v2 series into a single > > > patch to make it bisectable. > > > > > > 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 | 8 +- > > > 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 | 11 +- > > > 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 | 8 +- > > > boot/bootm.c | 26 +- > > > boot/bootm_os.c | 5 +- > > > boot/image-board.c | 34 +-- > > > boot/image-fdt.c | 36 ++- > > > cmd/bdinfo.c | 6 +- > > > cmd/booti.c | 2 +- > > > cmd/bootz.c | 2 +- > > > cmd/elf.c | 2 +- > > > cmd/load.c | 7 +- > > > drivers/iommu/apple_dart.c | 8 +- > > > drivers/iommu/sandbox_iommu.c | 16 +- > > > fs/fs.c | 7 +- > > > include/image.h | 28 +- > > > include/lmb.h | 114 +++----- > > > lib/efi_loader/efi_dt_fixup.c | 2 +- > > > lib/efi_loader/efi_helper.c | 2 +- > > > lib/lmb.c | 395 +++++++++++++++------------ > > > net/tftp.c | 5 +- > > > net/wget.c | 5 +- > > > test/cmd/bdinfo.c | 2 +- > > > test/lib/lmb.c | 205 ++++++-------- > > > 39 files changed, 477 insertions(+), 560 deletions(-) > > > > I might have missed it, but I didn't see a response to my comment on > > the previous patch. I think we should have the lmb state in a struct > > so that sandbox tests can reset it as needed. > > Based on your comment [1], my understanding was that you were okay > with not introducing a struct for this. I believe Tom too was not very > keen on including the lmb struct into gd.
It should be in a struct, so that its state is all in one place...for testing if nothing else. Re gd, it doesn't need to be in there, if there is only one. Regards, Simon
