[PATCH 02/22] ARM: use late patch framework for phys-virt patching
nicolas.pitre at linaro.org
Sun Aug 5 22:06:30 EDT 2012
On Sun, 5 Aug 2012, Cyril Chemparathy wrote:
> Hi Nicolas,
> On 8/4/2012 2:15 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 Jul 2012, Cyril Chemparathy wrote:
> > > This patch replaces the original physical offset patching implementation
> > > with one that uses the newly added patching framework. In the process, we
> > > now
> > > unconditionally initialize the __pv_phys_offset and __pv_offset globals in
> > > the
> > > head.S code.
> > Why unconditionally initializing those? There is no reason for that.
> We could keep this conditional on LPAE, but do you see any specific need for
> keeping it conditional?
This has nothing to do with LPAe. This is about
CONFIG_ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT only. If not selected, those global
vaariables have no need to exist.
> > Comments below.
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/head.S b/arch/arm/kernel/head.S
> > > index 835898e..d165896 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/head.S
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/head.S
> > [...]
> > > .data
> > > .globl __pv_phys_offset
> > > .type __pv_phys_offset, %object
> > > __pv_phys_offset:
> > > .long 0
> > > .size __pv_phys_offset, . - __pv_phys_offset
> > > +
> > > + .globl __pv_offset
> > > + .type __pv_offset, %object
> > > __pv_offset:
> > > .long 0
> > > -#endif
> > > + .size __pv_offset, . - __pv_offset
> > Please move those to C code. They aren't of much use in this file
> > anymore. This will allow you to use pphys_addr_t for them as well in
> > your subsequent patch. And more importantly get rid of that ugly
> > pv_offset_high that you introduced iin another patch.
> Moving it to C-code caused problems because these get filled in prior to BSS
> being cleared.
> We could potentially have this initialized in C with a mystery dummy value to
> prevent it from landing in BSS. Would that be acceptable?
Just initialize them explicitly to zero. They will end up in .ddata
> > > index df5e897..39f8fce 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/module.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/module.c
> > > @@ -317,11 +317,6 @@ int module_finalize(const Elf32_Ehdr *hdr, const
> > > Elf_Shdr *sechdrs,
> > > maps[i].txt_sec->sh_addr,
> > > maps[i].txt_sec->sh_size);
> > > #endif
> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT
> > > - s = find_mod_section(hdr, sechdrs, ".pv_table");
> > > - if (s)
> > > - fixup_pv_table((void *)s->sh_addr, s->sh_size);
> > > -#endif
> > > s = find_mod_section(hdr, sechdrs, ".patch.table");
> > > if (s)
> > > patch_kernel((void *)s->sh_addr, s->sh_size);
> > The patch_kernel code and its invokation should still be conditional on
> > CONFIG_ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT. This ability may still be configured out
> > irrespective of the implementation used.
> Maybe CONFIG_ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT is not quite appropriate if this is used to
> patch up other things in addition to phys-virt stuff?
Maybe, but at the moment this is not the case.
> I could have this dependent on CONFIG_ARM_INIT_PATCH (or whatever nomenclature
> we chose for this) and have CONFIG_ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT depend on it.
Let's cross that bridge in time.
FWIW, I don't like "init patch" much. I feel like the "runtime"
qualifier more pricisely describe this code than "init".
More information about the linux-arm-kernel