On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 at 07:41, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi Sughosh, > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 at 02:17, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 at 02:04, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 at 12:01, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Introduce a function lmb_add_memory() to add available memory to the > > > > LMB memory map. Call this function during board init once the LMB data > > > > structures have been initialised. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> > > > > --- > > > > Changes since V1: > > > > * Call the lmb_add_memory() from lmb_init() instead of > > > > lmb_mem_regions_init(). > > > > > > > > > > > > include/lmb.h | 10 ++++++++++ > > > > lib/lmb.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > > > But this should not be weak. > > > > This is being made weak, as there would be lmb_add_memory() > > definitions added for powerpc and x86 arch's in the EFI part of my > > patches. Moreover, the lmb_add_memory() function would be called even > > in the SPL stage when LMB is enabled for that stage. So I am not sure > > how do we get around this. You can check the relevant branch [1] on my > > github to check for the specific commits [2][3] that I am referring > > to. Thanks. > > This is really strange. > > The e820 is different on each x86 board. I'm not sure we want that in > the lmb. What is the purpose of that? It is somewhat circular in most > cases, since U-Boot sets it up itself. Where it comes from coreboot, > it looks like we are mirroring it in the EFI memory map. I'm not sure > I understand all this very well.
Yes, me neither. And I want to keep the behaviour same as before the patches. You would know that the function efi_add_known_memory() gets the memory map from a function install_e820_map() which includes conventional memory, which is the ram memory. And I am basically now doing this as part of the lmb_add_memory() function instead. Are you sure that we can do away with this function, and instead use the ram_base and ram_top values from the global data structure instead? I believe you have boards which exercise this code? So it will be great if you can test this if I remove the function for the e820 module. > > For fsl, perhaps copy the #ifdef and handle arch.resv_ram in your code? This is for adding ram to the lmb memory map, but yes, I can check by putting an ifdef in the function. Although the function might look ugly and hackish. Thanks. -sughosh > > [..] > Regards, > Simon > > > > [1] - https://github.com/sughoshg/u-boot/tree/lmb_efi_sep_apis_nrfc_next_v3 > > [2] - > > https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/commit/077ced7aaa6d495b1b87b324fb1c60658c203ce1 > > [3] - > > https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/commit/d0fa3a89865b796f3bbebffebbe4f7b5b048c140 > >
