On Sat, May 30, 2026 at 04:16:34PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 5/30/26 4:06 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > The revert is wrong as that breaks other things , like use of DRAM above 4 > > > GiB boundary, which is exactly why this change was implemented. If RPi has > > > limitations, then those limitations should be imposed on RPi, not > > > globally, > > > so add the LMB reservations on RPi. > > > > Isn't the case you describe still a theoretical and not used in tree > > case? > > No, this is used by the Sparrow Hawk board, which depends on it.
Since when, and can we just also revert that to it's old behavior? > > > And note that Ilias' patches to relocate to the top of memory also > > fail on Pi. So there's something to be debugged here and worked out > > before we add this seemingly enhanced behavior. Hence, the need to > > revert it for now until it can be fixed. > We still have two RCs to go, so I don't see the need for a hasty revert that > breaks other systems, esp. if Ilias is looking into the RPi situation now, > and I already offered a way to fix the RPi in the short term without > breaking the other systems. Ilias is not (yet) looking in to the problem with his series. I'm just noting that Pi is showing examples of the complicated memory map with things above and below 4G. And yes, we have a month between now and the release so a revert (or several, to return Sparrow Hawk to working) is currently on the table, if no one can work out how to fix things. Perhaps you'd have some suggestions if you read all of the threads? This wasn't just "Oh, this commit broke things, revert" as your emails imply to me this morning. People have gone through and tried adding what seemed to be the missing map information, yet it was insufficient. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
