[PATCH] riscv: Fix 32-bit RISC-V boot failure

[Palmer Dabbelt]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 19:14:20 PDT (-0700), bmeng.cn at gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 9:29 PM Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Palmer,
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 10:20 AM Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 10:08 AM Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang at huawei.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 2021/6/30 19:58, Bin Meng wrote:
>> > > > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 11:21 AM Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 10:28 AM Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang at huawei.com> wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> On 2021/6/28 9:15, Bin Meng wrote:
>> > > >>>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 8:53 AM Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang at huawei.com> wrote:
>> > > >>>>> Hi， sorry for the mistake，the bug is fixed by
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20210602085517.127481-2-wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com/
>> > > >>>> What are we on the patch you mentioned?
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> I don't see it applied in the linux/master.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> Also there should be a "Fixes" tag and stable at vger.kernel.org cc'ed
>> > > >>>> because 32-bit is broken since v5.12.
>> > > >>> https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/riscv/linux/+/c9811e379b211c67ba29fb09d6f644dd44cfcff2
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> it's on Palmer' riscv-next.
>> > > >> Not sure riscv-next is for which release? This is a regression and
>> > > >> should be on 5.13.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> Hi Palmer, should I resend or could you help me to add the fixes tag?
>> > > > Your patch mixed 2 things (fix plus one feature) together, so it is
>> > > > not proper to back port your patch.
>> > >
>> > > "mem=" will change the range of memblock, so the fix part must be included.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Yes, so you can rebase the "mem=" changes on top of my patch.
>> >
>> > The practice is that we should not mix 2 things in one patch. I can
>> > imagine that you wanted to add "mem=" to RISC-V and suddenly found the
>> > existing logic was broken, so you sent one patch to do both.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Here is my 2 cents:
>> > > >
>> > > > 1. Drop your patch from riscv-next
>> > > > 2. Apply my patch as it is a simple fix to previous commit. This
>> > > > allows stable kernel to cherry-pick the fix to v5.12 and v5.13.
>> > > > 3. Rebase your patch against mine, and resend v2
>> > > >
>> > > > Let me know if this makes sense.
>> > >
>> > > It is not a big problem for me, but I have no right abourt riscv-next,
>> > >
>> > > let's wait Palmer's advise.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Sure. Palmer, let me know your thoughts.
>>
>> Ping?
>
> Ping?

Sorry, I missed this one.  It looks like the patch that adds mem= and 
fixes the bug has already been merged, so I'm not really quite sure what 
the right thing to do is here: we don't really want the mem= code on 
stable, but we do want the fix.  I went ahead and did

commit 444818b599189fd8b6c814da542ff8cfc9fe67d4 (HEAD -> fixes, palmer/fixes)
gpg: Signature made Wed 21 Jul 2021 10:21:05 PM PDT
gpg:                using RSA key 2B3C3747446843B24A943A7A2E1319F35FBB1889
gpg:                issuer "palmer at dabbelt.com"
gpg: Good signature from "Palmer Dabbelt <palmer at dabbelt.com>" [ultimate]
gpg:                 aka "Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt at google.com>" [ultimate]
Merge: e73f0f0ee754 d0e4dae74470
Author: Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt at google.com>
Date:   Wed Jul 21 22:18:58 2021 -0700

    Merge remote-tracking branch 'riscv/riscv-fix-32bit' into fixes

    This contains a single fix for 32-bit boot.  It happens this was already
    fixed by c9811e379b21 ("riscv: Add mem kernel parameter support"), but
    the bug existed before that feature addition so I've applied the patch
    earlier and then merged it in (which results in a conflict, which is
    fixed via not changing the resulting tree).

    * riscv/riscv-fix-32bit:
      riscv: Fix 32-bit RISC-V boot failure

as that"s the best I could come up with -- then the fix will land on 
master, which should cause it to get pulled onto stable.

Greg: is there a better way to make something like this get to stable?