| Message ID | 1476525795-27483-6-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | Alexander Graf |
| Headers | show |
On 10/15/2016 03:03 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > The efi loader code has its own memory map, so it needs to be aware where > the spin tables are located, to ensure that no code writes into those > regions. > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> > --- > arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c > index 1a8321b..facfcca 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c > +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c > @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ > */ > > #include <common.h> > +#include <efi_loader.h> > #include <libfdt.h> > #include <fdt_support.h> > #include <phy.h> > @@ -105,6 +106,11 @@ remove_psci_node: > > fdt_add_mem_rsv(blob, (uintptr_t)&secondary_boot_code, > *boot_code_size); > +#ifdef CONFIG_EFI_LOADER > + efi_add_memory_map((uintptr_t)&secondary_boot_code, > + ALIGN(*boot_code_size, EFI_PAGE_SIZE) >> EFI_PAGE_SHIFT, > + EFI_RESERVED_MEMORY_TYPE, false); > +#endif > } > #endif > > Alex, Does it make more sense to use __spin_table instead of secondary_boot_code (even they happen to have the same value here)? York
On 15.10.16 18:57, york sun wrote: > On 10/15/2016 03:03 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> The efi loader code has its own memory map, so it needs to be aware where >> the spin tables are located, to ensure that no code writes into those >> regions. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> >> --- >> arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c | 6 ++++++ >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c >> index 1a8321b..facfcca 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c >> @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ >> */ >> >> #include <common.h> >> +#include <efi_loader.h> >> #include <libfdt.h> >> #include <fdt_support.h> >> #include <phy.h> >> @@ -105,6 +106,11 @@ remove_psci_node: >> >> fdt_add_mem_rsv(blob, (uintptr_t)&secondary_boot_code, >> *boot_code_size); >> +#ifdef CONFIG_EFI_LOADER >> + efi_add_memory_map((uintptr_t)&secondary_boot_code, >> + ALIGN(*boot_code_size, EFI_PAGE_SIZE) >> EFI_PAGE_SHIFT, >> + EFI_RESERVED_MEMORY_TYPE, false); >> +#endif >> } >> #endif >> >> > Alex, > > Does it make more sense to use __spin_table instead of > secondary_boot_code (even they happen to have the same value here)? I'm reasonably indifferent, but I wanted to make sure we're using the same values as the fdt_add_mem_rsv() line above :). Alex
On 10/17/2016 02:01 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > On 15.10.16 18:57, york sun wrote: >> On 10/15/2016 03:03 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> The efi loader code has its own memory map, so it needs to be aware where >>> the spin tables are located, to ensure that no code writes into those >>> regions. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c | 6 ++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c >>> index 1a8321b..facfcca 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c >>> @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ >>> */ >>> >>> #include <common.h> >>> +#include <efi_loader.h> >>> #include <libfdt.h> >>> #include <fdt_support.h> >>> #include <phy.h> >>> @@ -105,6 +106,11 @@ remove_psci_node: >>> >>> fdt_add_mem_rsv(blob, (uintptr_t)&secondary_boot_code, >>> *boot_code_size); >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_EFI_LOADER >>> + efi_add_memory_map((uintptr_t)&secondary_boot_code, >>> + ALIGN(*boot_code_size, EFI_PAGE_SIZE) >> EFI_PAGE_SHIFT, >>> + EFI_RESERVED_MEMORY_TYPE, false); >>> +#endif >>> } >>> #endif >>> >>> >> Alex, >> >> Does it make more sense to use __spin_table instead of >> secondary_boot_code (even they happen to have the same value here)? > > I'm reasonably indifferent, but I wanted to make sure we're using the > same values as the fdt_add_mem_rsv() line above :). OK, then. York
diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c index 1a8321b..facfcca 100644 --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ */ #include <common.h> +#include <efi_loader.h> #include <libfdt.h> #include <fdt_support.h> #include <phy.h> @@ -105,6 +106,11 @@ remove_psci_node: fdt_add_mem_rsv(blob, (uintptr_t)&secondary_boot_code, *boot_code_size); +#ifdef CONFIG_EFI_LOADER + efi_add_memory_map((uintptr_t)&secondary_boot_code, + ALIGN(*boot_code_size, EFI_PAGE_SIZE) >> EFI_PAGE_SHIFT, + EFI_RESERVED_MEMORY_TYPE, false); +#endif } #endif
The efi loader code has its own memory map, so it needs to be aware where the spin tables are located, to ensure that no code writes into those regions. Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> --- arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)