On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 05:06:45PM +0530, Sughosh Ganu wrote: > On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 at 01:18, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 01:05:12PM +0530, Sughosh Ganu wrote: > > > > > Add separate config symbols for enabling the LMB module for the SPL > > > phase. The LMB module implementation now relies on alloced list data > > > structure which requires heap area to be present. Add specific config > > > symbol for the SPL phase of U-Boot so that this can be enabled on > > > platforms which support a heap in SPL. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> > > > --- > > > Changes since V1: New patch > > > > > > lib/Kconfig | 12 +++++++++++- > > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/Kconfig b/lib/Kconfig > > > index 072ed0ecfa..7eea517b3b 100644 > > > --- a/lib/Kconfig > > > +++ b/lib/Kconfig > > > @@ -1103,7 +1103,17 @@ config LMB > > > default y if ARC || ARM || M68K || MICROBLAZE || MIPS || \ > > > NIOS2 || PPC || RISCV || SANDBOX || SH || X86 || XTENSA > > > help > > > - Support the library logical memory blocks. > > > + Support the library logical memory blocks. This will require > > > + a malloc() implementation for defining the data structures > > > + needed for maintaining the LMB memory map. > > > > Even today, LMB really should be def_bool y rather than an option, so > > this series should correct that. That said... > > Okay > > > > > > +config SPL_LMB > > > + bool "Enable LMB module for SPL" > > > + depends on SPL && SPL_FRAMEWORK && SPL_SYS_MALLOC > > > + help > > > + Enable support for Logical Memory Block library routines in > > > + SPL. This will require a malloc() implementation for defining > > > + the data structures needed for maintaining the LMB memory map. > > > > The question I guess becomes when do we need LMB in SPL, exactly? And I > > guess it's another case where it should be def_bool y (but still depends > > on what you have here) since we need to make sure we don't overwrite > > running SPL. > > So this is a question even I had. Do we really need to enable LMB in > SPL ? The main reason for introducing the symbol was to have more > granularity to remove the LMB code from SPL, but should this really be > enabled in SPL is something that I am not too sure about.
Yes, we need to ensure we obey reservations in SPL, both for U-Boot and for when we boot the OS from SPL. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
