Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v5 5/7] armv8: ls2080a: Declare spin tables as reserved for efi loader
On 10/17/2016 02:01 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > On 15.10.16 18:57, york sun wrote: >> On 10/15/2016 03:03 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> The efi loader code has its own memory map, so it needs to be aware where >>> the spin tables are located, to ensure that no code writes into those >>> regions. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf >>> --- >>> arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c | 6 ++ >>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c >>> b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c >>> index 1a8321b..facfcca 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c >>> @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ >>> */ >>> >>> #include >>> +#include >>> #include >>> #include >>> #include >>> @@ -105,6 +106,11 @@ remove_psci_node: >>> >>> fdt_add_mem_rsv(blob, (uintptr_t)&secondary_boot_code, >>> *boot_code_size); >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_EFI_LOADER >>> + efi_add_memory_map((uintptr_t)&secondary_boot_code, >>> + ALIGN(*boot_code_size, EFI_PAGE_SIZE) >> >>> EFI_PAGE_SHIFT, >>> + EFI_RESERVED_MEMORY_TYPE, false); >>> +#endif >>> } >>> #endif >>> >>> >> Alex, >> >> Does it make more sense to use __spin_table instead of >> secondary_boot_code (even they happen to have the same value here)? > > I'm reasonably indifferent, but I wanted to make sure we're using the > same values as the fdt_add_mem_rsv() line above :). OK, then. York ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v5 5/7] armv8: ls2080a: Declare spin tables as reserved for efi loader
On 15.10.16 18:57, york sun wrote: > On 10/15/2016 03:03 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> The efi loader code has its own memory map, so it needs to be aware where >> the spin tables are located, to ensure that no code writes into those >> regions. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf >> --- >> arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c | 6 ++ >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c >> b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c >> index 1a8321b..facfcca 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c >> @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ >> */ >> >> #include >> +#include >> #include >> #include >> #include >> @@ -105,6 +106,11 @@ remove_psci_node: >> >> fdt_add_mem_rsv(blob, (uintptr_t)&secondary_boot_code, >> *boot_code_size); >> +#ifdef CONFIG_EFI_LOADER >> +efi_add_memory_map((uintptr_t)&secondary_boot_code, >> + ALIGN(*boot_code_size, EFI_PAGE_SIZE) >> >> EFI_PAGE_SHIFT, >> + EFI_RESERVED_MEMORY_TYPE, false); >> +#endif >> } >> #endif >> >> > Alex, > > Does it make more sense to use __spin_table instead of > secondary_boot_code (even they happen to have the same value here)? I'm reasonably indifferent, but I wanted to make sure we're using the same values as the fdt_add_mem_rsv() line above :). Alex ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v5 5/7] armv8: ls2080a: Declare spin tables as reserved for efi loader
On 10/15/2016 03:03 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > The efi loader code has its own memory map, so it needs to be aware where > the spin tables are located, to ensure that no code writes into those > regions. > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf > --- > arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c | 6 ++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c > b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c > index 1a8321b..facfcca 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c > +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c > @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ > */ > > #include > +#include > #include > #include > #include > @@ -105,6 +106,11 @@ remove_psci_node: > > fdt_add_mem_rsv(blob, (uintptr_t)&secondary_boot_code, > *boot_code_size); > +#ifdef CONFIG_EFI_LOADER > + efi_add_memory_map((uintptr_t)&secondary_boot_code, > +ALIGN(*boot_code_size, EFI_PAGE_SIZE) >> > EFI_PAGE_SHIFT, > +EFI_RESERVED_MEMORY_TYPE, false); > +#endif > } > #endif > > Alex, Does it make more sense to use __spin_table instead of secondary_boot_code (even they happen to have the same value here)? York ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
