[PATCH 18/28] of: create default early_init_dt_add_memory_arch

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely at linaro.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:09:14 -0500, Rob Herring <robherring2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> From: Rob Herring <rob.herring at calxeda.com>
>>
>> Create a weak version of early_init_dt_add_memory_arch which uses
>> memblock or is an empty function when memblock is not enabled. This
>> will unify all architectures except ones with custom memory bank
>> structs.
>
> Two comments below, but otherwise:
>
> Acked-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely at linaro.org>
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c
>> index 0714dd4..a9dce7a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c
>> +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c
>> @@ -688,6 +688,17 @@ u64 __init dt_mem_next_cell(int s, __be32 **cellp)
>>       return of_read_number(p, s);
>>  }
>>
>> +void __init __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
>> +{
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK
>> +     base &= PAGE_MASK;
>> +     size &= PAGE_MASK;
>> +     memblock_add(base, size);
>> +#else
>> +     pr_err("%s: ignoring memory (%llx, %llx)\n", __func__, base, size);
>> +#endif
>> +}
>> +
>
> Can you do it this way instead:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK
> void __init __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
> {
>         base &= PAGE_MASK;
>         size &= PAGE_MASK;
>         memblock_add(base, size);
> }
> #endif
>
> If the platform doesn't provide an early_init_dt_add_memory_arch()
> function and it doesn't have a memblock implementation, then the build
> should outright fail. I don't see a scenario where we would want to
> successfully build the kernel without a working add memory function.

metag and x86 both have empty functions. I guess they get memory from
a different boot interface.

Rob

>
> Also, can you group this function with the common __weak
> early_init_dt_alloc_memory_arch() implementation? It would be good to
> group all the memblock specific functions together.
>
> g.
>