On Tue, Dec 09, 2025 at 03:57:50PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > > > On 12/9/25 15:43, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 09, 2025 at 03:17:45PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > > > > > From: Pranav Sanwal <[email protected]> > > > > > > Move DRAM bank detection from fdtdec to custom implementation to > > > ensure memory banks are populated before get_page_table_size() is > > > called during MMU initialization. > > > > > > The current fdtdec-based approach populates gd->bd->bi_dram[] too > > > late in the boot sequence, causing get_page_table_size() to be > > > called with unpopulated DRAM information. This prevents dynamic > > > page table sizing based on actual memory configuration. > > > > > > Parse /memory nodes in dram_init() to fill versal2_mem_map[] > > > early enough for MMU setup. Supports up to > > > CONFIG_NR_DRAM_BANKS (36) non-contiguous banks with high memory > > > regions (>4GB) and use __weak get_page_table_size implementation > > > to estimate page table size based on the populated DRAM banks. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pranav Sanwal <[email protected]> > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <[email protected]> > > [snip] > > > diff --git a/include/dm/ofnode.h b/include/dm/ofnode.h > > > index 120393426dbf..5be9513f5238 100644 > > > --- a/include/dm/ofnode.h > > > +++ b/include/dm/ofnode.h > > > @@ -1886,4 +1886,6 @@ int ofnode_copy_node(ofnode dst_parent, const char > > > *name, ofnode src, > > > */ > > > int ofnode_delete(ofnode *nodep); > > > +ofnode get_next_memory_node(ofnode mem); > > > > This function is in lib/fdtdec.c and so we should have the declaration > > in include/fdtdec.h and while it doesn't have a kernel-doc comment > > today, it should. If you want to in v2 make 1/2 add the prototype and > > comment and 2/2 use it in mach-versal that might be a good split. > > We will do. And do you have any issue with logic in this patch? > Pretty much we don't want u-boot to be relocated inside the memory bank > where it was initially loaded and we didn't find a better way to do it.
It sounds like it's a bit of a generic arm64 problem? But this is probably the right step forward until a second SoC hits it and maybe we see a better place to change things more generally. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
