[PATCH] Add warning above get_ram_size
Sascha Hauer
s.hauer at pengutronix.de
Thu Feb 14 14:13:21 EST 2013
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 02:59:48PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi Sascha,
>
> Le 14/02/2013 12:35, Sascha Hauer a écrit :
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:40:38AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >> Hi Sascha,
> >>
> >> Le 13/02/2013 18:16, Sascha Hauer a écrit :
> >>> Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer at pengutronix.de>
> >>> ---
> >>> common/memsize.c | 3 +++
> >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/common/memsize.c b/common/memsize.c
> >>> index d149e41..ef6381b 100644
> >>> --- a/common/memsize.c
> >>> +++ b/common/memsize.c
> >>> @@ -33,6 +33,9 @@
> >>> * Check memory range for valid RAM. A simple memory test determines
> >>> * the actually available RAM size between addresses `base' and
> >>> * `base + maxsize'.
> >>> + *
> >>> + * This function modifies the RAM. Do not use it if you're running from
> >>> + * the RAM you are going to detect!
> >>> */
> >>
> >> Actually, I don't see how it modifies the RAM, at least permanently. The
> >> values it erase are backed up, and there's no concurrency at barebox
> >> level, so we are sure that the value saved will still be the one that
> >> would need to be backed up at the end of the function, right?
> >
> > Yes, it restores the values, but how do you make sure the function does
> > not modify the instructions you are currently executing? You need bad
> > luck to hit this, but sooner or later this will happen.
>
> Ah, yes, this would be nasty indeed. Is there a way to know the end
> address of barebox into RAM ? or the address it has been loaded to and
> the size of its binary, so that we can just check the part that doesn't
> hold barebox?
See include/asm-generic/sections.h. You have to avoid modifying
everything between _text and __bss_stop. I haven't looked how exactly
get_dram_size works. Normally this function would have to test every
location at a power of 2, that would be:
1 2 4 ... 64MiB 128MiB
It seems you have to make sure that your binary does not cross a power
of 2 boundary, then you should be safe.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
More information about the barebox
mailing list