Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:29:33 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86/boot: replace __PHYSICAL_START with LOAD_PHYSICAL_ADDR |
| |
* Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> wrote:
> Both __PHYSICAL_START and LOAD_PHYSICAL_ADDR are defined to get aligned > CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START, so we can replace __PHYSICAL_START with > LOAD_PHYSICAL_ADDR. And then remove the definition of __PHYSICAL_START, > which is only used to define __START_KERNEL. > > Since <asm/boot.h> includes <asm/pgtable_types.h>, which includes > <asm/page_types.h>, it is fine to move definition from <asm/boot.h> to > <asm/page_types.h>. > > Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> > --- > arch/x86/include/asm/boot.h | 5 ----- > arch/x86/include/asm/page_types.h | 8 +++++--- > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/boot.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/boot.h > index a38cc0afc90a..12cbc57d0128 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/boot.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/boot.h > @@ -6,11 +6,6 @@ > #include <asm/pgtable_types.h> > #include <uapi/asm/boot.h> > > -/* Physical address where kernel should be loaded. */ > -#define LOAD_PHYSICAL_ADDR ((CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START \ > - + (CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN - 1)) \ > - & ~(CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN - 1)) > - > /* Minimum kernel alignment, as a power of two */ > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 > # define MIN_KERNEL_ALIGN_LG2 PMD_SHIFT > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/page_types.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/page_types.h > index 86bd4311daf8..acc1620fd121 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/page_types.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/page_types.h > @@ -31,10 +31,12 @@ > > #define VM_DATA_DEFAULT_FLAGS VM_DATA_FLAGS_TSK_EXEC > > -#define __PHYSICAL_START ALIGN(CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START, \ > - CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN) > +/* Physical address where kernel should be loaded. */ > +#define LOAD_PHYSICAL_ADDR ((CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START \ > + + (CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN - 1)) \ > + & ~(CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN - 1))
I agree with this simplification, but the ALIGN() expression is far easier to read, so please keep that one instead of the open-coded version.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |