lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] WIP: HACK: LPAE, BOOTMEM and NO_BOOTMEM
( Expanding cc list, original thread is at
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1518046 )

Hello,

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 06:21:24PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> Unfortunately, that has not been true on ARM - it's very common for
> there to be an offset on physical memory, sometimes of the order of
> 3GB or more. This is because on reset, ARMs start executing the code
> at physical address zero, which therefore can't be RAM - and there's
> a desire to avoid complex switching games in hardware to temporarily
> map ROM there instead of RAM.
>
> On these SoCs which Santosh is working on, the main physical memory
> mapping is above 4GB, with just a small alias below 4GB to allow the
> system to boot without the MMU being on, as they may have more than
> 4GB of RAM. As I understand it, the small alias below 4GB is not
> suitable for use as a "lowmem" mapping.

Ah, okay, so the @limit which is in physical address can be over 4GB
even for lowmem mappings and alloc_bootmem takes them in ulongs,
urghhh....

Given that still about half of the archs aren't using memblock yet, I
think there are three options.

1. Converting all bootmem interface to use physaddr_t. But that's
what memblock is.

2. Introducing new interface. Easier right now but the danger there
is that it might end up duplicating most of alloc_bootmem()
interface anyway and we'll have yet another variant of early mem
allocator to enjoy.

3. Make all generic code use memblock interface instead of bootmem and
implement memblock wrapper on archs which don't use memblock yet.
We'll probably need to sort out different combinations of
HAVE_MEMBLOCK and NO_BOOTMEM. If this is doable, it probably is
the most future proof way. While it adds new memblock interface
built on top of bootmem, it would also allow removing the bootmem
interface built on top of memblock - ie. nobootmem.c, which
probably is what we should have done from the beginning.

What do you guys think?

Thanks.

--
tejun


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-06-29 20:21    [W:0.072 / U:7.016 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site