On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 06:24:08AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi, > > On 14 July 2014 18:16, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On 14 July 2014 16:28, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:23:24PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > >> > >> > There has been talk on and off of a pre-relocation malloc() > >> > implementation. > >> > Driver model needs this so that it can work before relocation. > >> > > >> > A previous implementation was sent in a v1 series. > >> > > >> > This implementation works by allocating space on the stack. The benefit > >> > is > >> > that boards do not need to specify the address of the malloc() area, only > >> > the size. The down-side is that due to the way board_init_f() is called, > >> > architecture-specific code needs to be used to allocate the space. > >> > > >> > No clever algorithms are used to allocate space, free() is a nop and > >> > realloc() is not supported. This fits well with the desire to avoid > >> > wasting > >> > space on bucket tables and the hassle of supporting BSS data before > >> > relocation. We don't expect 'churn' in the pre-relocation case - we just > >> > want to allocate small amounts of memory temporarily. > >> > > >> > After relocation a new malloc() pool is created and the old one is lost, > >> > although pointers into it will survive the immediate process of > >> > relocation. > >> > > >> > Implementations are provided for sandbox and arm (32-bit only). > >> > > >> > A related change is made to the early init for each arch to make this > >> > work. > >> > >> My concern without a fix right now is how to make use of this in SPL, > >> when we're able to move SPL over to using still more generic code rather > >> than re-inventing the board_init_{f,r} wheels, in the case where we init > >> DRAM. > > > > One option would be to split this new code out into a separate file, > > and have two malloc() implementations: > > > > - big one - falls back to small one pre-relocation > > - small one - used for SPL > > I'm thinking of applying this to the dm repo now, except for the arm > patches where I would like to get Albert's ack (so I'll wait a few > more days). > > Any objections?
I think we'll be OK. I checked over the callpath again on OMAP parts and we setup DDR prior to _main (in SPL) so we'll be fine. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot