On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 02:20:25PM +0200, Lukasz Stelmach wrote: > It was <2020-05-19 wto 12:43>, when Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 01:21:09PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:46 AM Russell King - ARM Linux admin > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:44:17AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:54 AM Lukasz Stelmach > >> > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > It was <2020-04-29 śro 10:21>, when Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> > > > > Currently, the start address of physical memory is obtained by > >> > > > > masking > >> > > > > the program counter with a fixed mask of 0xf8000000. This mask > >> > > > > value > >> > > > > was chosen as a balance between the requirements of different > >> > > > > platforms. > >> > > > > However, this does require that the start address of physical > >> > > > > memory is > >> > > > > a multiple of 128 MiB, precluding booting Linux on platforms where > >> > > > > this > >> > > > > requirement is not fulfilled. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Fix this limitation by obtaining the start address from the DTB > >> > > > > instead, > >> > > > > if available (either explicitly passed, or appended to the kernel). > >> > > > > Fall back to the traditional method when needed. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > This allows to boot Linux on r7s9210/rza2mevb using the 64 MiB of > >> > > > > SDRAM > >> > > > > on the RZA2MEVB sub board, which is located at 0x0C000000 (CS3 > >> > > > > space), > >> > > > > i.e. not at a multiple of 128 MiB. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Suggested-by: Nicolas Pitre <[email protected]> > >> > > > > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> > >> > > > > Reviewed-by: Nicolas Pitre <[email protected]> > >> > > > > Reviewed-by: Ard Biesheuvel <[email protected]> > >> > > > > Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <[email protected]> > >> > > > > Tested-by: Dmitry Osipenko <[email protected]> > >> > > > > --- > >> > > > > >> > > > [...] > >> > > > > >> > > > Apparently reading physical memory layout from DTB breaks crashdump > >> > > > kernels. A crashdump kernel is loaded into a region of memory, that > >> > > > is > >> > > > reserved in the original (i.e. to be crashed) kernel. The reserved > >> > > > region is large enough for the crashdump kernel to run completely > >> > > > inside > >> > > > it and don't modify anything outside it, just read and dump the > >> > > > remains > >> > > > of the crashed kernel. Using the information from DTB makes the > >> > > > decompressor place the kernel outside of the dedicated region. > >> > > > > >> > > > The log below shows that a zImage and DTB are loaded at 0x18eb8000 > >> > > > and > >> > > > 0x193f6000 (physical). The kernel is expected to run at 0x18008000, > >> > > > but > >> > > > it is decompressed to 0x00008000 (see r4 reported before jumping from > >> > > > within __enter_kernel). If I were to suggest something, there need > >> > > > to be > >> > > > one more bit of information passed in the DTB telling the > >> > > > decompressor > >> > > > to use the old masking technique to determain kernel address. It > >> > > > would > >> > > > be set in the DTB loaded along with the crashdump kernel. > >> > > > >> > > Shouldn't the DTB passed to the crashkernel describe which region of > >> > > memory is to be used instead? > >> > > >> > Definitely not. The crashkernel needs to know where the RAM in the > >> > machine is, so that it can create a coredump of the crashed kernel. > >> > >> So the DTB should describe both ;-) > >> > >> > > Describing "to use the old masking technique" sounds a bit hackish to > >> > > me. > >> > > I guess it cannot just restrict the /memory node to the reserved > >> > > region, > >> > > as the crashkernel needs to be able to dump the remains of the crashed > >> > > kernel, which lie outside this region. > >> > > >> > Correct. > >> > > >> > > However, something under /chosen should work. > >> > > >> > Yet another sticky plaster... > >> > >> IMHO the old masking technique is the hacky solution covered by > >> plasters. > > > > One line of code is not "covered by plasters". There are no plasters. > > It's a solution that works for 99.99% of people, unlike your approach > > that has had a stream of issues over the last four months, and has > > required many reworks of the code to fix each one. That in itself > > speaks volumes about the suitability of the approach. > > As I have been working with kexec code (patches soon) I would like to > defend the DT approach a bit. It allows to avoid zImage relocation when > a decompressed kernel is larger than ~128MiB. In such case zImage isn't > small either and moving it around takes some time.
... which is something that has been supported for a very long time, before the days of DT. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC for 0.8m (est. 1762m) line in suburbia: sync at 13.1Mbps down 424kbps up
