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 <ag...@suse.de> >>> --- >>> 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 <common.h> >>> +#include <efi_loader.h> >>> #include <libfdt.h> >>> #include <fdt_support.h> >>> #include <phy.h> >>> @@ -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
