On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 at 05:02, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi Sughosh, > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 00:04, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > Almost all of the current definitions of arch_lmb_reserve() are doing > > the same thing. The only exception in a couple of cases is the > > alignment parameter requirement. Have a generic weak implementation of > > this function, keeping the highest value of alignment that is being > > used(16K). > > > > Also, instead of using the current value of stack pointer for starting > > the reserved region, have a fixed value, considering the stack size > > config value. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> > > --- > > Changes since rfc: None > > > > arch/arc/lib/cache.c | 14 -------------- > > arch/arm/lib/stack.c | 14 -------------- > > arch/m68k/lib/bootm.c | 17 ----------------- > > arch/microblaze/lib/bootm.c | 14 -------------- > > arch/mips/lib/bootm.c | 15 --------------- > > arch/nios2/lib/bootm.c | 13 ------------- > > arch/powerpc/lib/bootm.c | 13 +++---------- > > arch/riscv/lib/bootm.c | 13 ------------- > > arch/sh/lib/bootm.c | 13 ------------- > > arch/x86/lib/bootm.c | 18 ------------------ > > arch/xtensa/lib/bootm.c | 13 ------------- > > lib/lmb.c | 6 +++++- > > 12 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 155 deletions(-) > > How about not having a weak function? I have to wonder whether powerpc > really needs to be different? If it does, I suppose we could use an > event to deal with powerpc.
Again, I have the same question about weak functions. It does not seem to be a universal policy. -sughosh > > Regards, > Simon
