Hi Sughosh, On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 at 08:40, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 at 19:30, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > +Bin Meng > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 at 23:29, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > We are suffering here from too many ways to do the same thing and too > > much confusion about the overall goal here. > > > > Typically the e820 thing is created in U-Boot - see > > install_e820_map(). The ISA and PCI ranges needs to be added, so EFI > > needs a way to know to do that. > > > > e820 is used for the normal kernel boot flow - the table is passed > > directly to Linux. > > > > With EFI the kernel calls back into U-Boot to get the memory map, so > > we want to add the same reservations to the EFI tables. > > > > So I would favour having EFI sending an event before booting, to allow > > other code to add new reservations. Then we can let e820 do its thing > > and not affect EFI. In fact the e820 code will never be called on an > > EFI boot. > > > > I say we can clean this up later, so what you have here will do for now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > Again, we can clean this up date. It is just one arch doing strange things. > > Can you please take a look at the branch[1] which I pointed to in my > earlier reply. I believe this caters to your review comment on doing > away with the weak function, as well as providing the option to boards > to define their own memory map. Thanks.
Yes your latest patch looks fine thank you. Regards, Simon > > -sughosh > > [1] - > https://github.com/sughoshg/u-boot/tree/lmb_efi_sep_apis_nrfc_next_noweak_v3 > > > > > > > > > > > [..] > > > > > > > > > [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 > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > Simon
