Re: [edk2] [PATCH] ArmPkg: Move FDT offset higher in RAM

2015-07-28 Thread Leif Lindholm
Apologies for top-posting, I think this conversation should drop edk2-devel and move to linaro-uefi (added to cc), until there is consensus/conclusion. Could the next person replying to this thread delete edk2-devel from the recipient list please? / Leif On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:41:29AM

Re: [edk2] [PATCH] ArmPkg: Move FDT offset higher in RAM

2015-07-28 Thread Ard Biesheuvel
On 28 July 2015 at 11:41, Ryan Harkin ryan.har...@linaro.org wrote: On 28 July 2015 at 10:26, Ard Biesheuvel ard.biesheu...@linaro.org wrote: On 28 July 2015 at 11:01, Ryan Harkin ryan.har...@linaro.org wrote: [+ Tixy as he's interested in making sure UEFI follows the Linux requirements]

Re: [edk2] [PATCH] ArmPkg: Move FDT offset higher in RAM

2015-07-28 Thread Ryan Harkin
[+ Tixy as he's interested in making sure UEFI follows the Linux requirements] On 28 July 2015 at 07:39, Ard Biesheuvel ard.biesheu...@linaro.org wrote: On 27 July 2015 at 22:42, Ryan Harkin ryan.har...@linaro.org wrote: Device tree files in recent kernels (eg. Linux 4.2) can be 16KB. The

Re: [edk2] [PATCH] ArmPkg: Move FDT offset higher in RAM

2015-07-28 Thread Ryan Harkin
On 28 July 2015 at 10:26, Ard Biesheuvel ard.biesheu...@linaro.org wrote: On 28 July 2015 at 11:01, Ryan Harkin ryan.har...@linaro.org wrote: [+ Tixy as he's interested in making sure UEFI follows the Linux requirements] On 28 July 2015 at 07:39, Ard Biesheuvel ard.biesheu...@linaro.org

Re: [edk2] [PATCH] ArmPkg: Move FDT offset higher in RAM

2015-07-28 Thread Ard Biesheuvel
On 28 July 2015 at 11:01, Ryan Harkin ryan.har...@linaro.org wrote: [+ Tixy as he's interested in making sure UEFI follows the Linux requirements] On 28 July 2015 at 07:39, Ard Biesheuvel ard.biesheu...@linaro.org wrote: On 27 July 2015 at 22:42, Ryan Harkin ryan.har...@linaro.org wrote:

[edk2] [PATCH] ArmPkg: Move FDT offset higher in RAM

2015-07-27 Thread Ryan Harkin
Device tree files in recent kernels (eg. Linux 4.2) can be 16KB. The max offset of 0x4000 meant that the device tree would be allocated at a random address, which more often than not was above the recommended 128MiB boundary. This email thread explains that the device tree should be placed