Message ID | 20240724060224.3071065-24-sughosh.ganu@linaro.org |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | Make LMB memory map global and persistent | expand |
Hi Sughosh, On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 00:04, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > Add a flags parameter to the LMB API functions. The parameter can then > be used to pass any other type of reservations or allocations needed > by the callers. These will be used in a subsequent set of changes for > allocation requests coming from the EFI subsystem. > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> > --- > Changes since rfc: New patch > > arch/arm/mach-apple/board.c | 17 ++-- > arch/arm/mach-snapdragon/board.c | 2 +- > arch/arm/mach-stm32mp/dram_init.c | 4 +- > arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/mp.c | 2 +- > arch/powerpc/lib/bootm.c | 2 +- > board/xilinx/common/board.c | 4 +- > boot/bootm.c | 5 +- > boot/image-board.c | 15 ++- > boot/image-fdt.c | 15 +-- > cmd/booti.c | 2 +- > cmd/bootz.c | 2 +- > cmd/load.c | 4 +- > drivers/iommu/apple_dart.c | 6 +- > drivers/iommu/sandbox_iommu.c | 6 +- > fs/fs.c | 2 +- > include/lmb.h | 23 ++--- > lib/lmb.c | 48 ++++------ > test/lib/lmb.c | 150 +++++++++++++++--------------- > 18 files changed, 150 insertions(+), 159 deletions(-) This negates any code-size advantage of dropping the lmb parameter. All of these are LMB_NONE. Can we have a separate function (e.g. lmb_alloc_type()) for when we actually need to specify the type? Regards, Simon
On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 at 05:02, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi Sughosh, > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 00:04, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > Add a flags parameter to the LMB API functions. The parameter can then > > be used to pass any other type of reservations or allocations needed > > by the callers. These will be used in a subsequent set of changes for > > allocation requests coming from the EFI subsystem. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> > > --- > > Changes since rfc: New patch > > > > arch/arm/mach-apple/board.c | 17 ++-- > > arch/arm/mach-snapdragon/board.c | 2 +- > > arch/arm/mach-stm32mp/dram_init.c | 4 +- > > arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/mp.c | 2 +- > > arch/powerpc/lib/bootm.c | 2 +- > > board/xilinx/common/board.c | 4 +- > > boot/bootm.c | 5 +- > > boot/image-board.c | 15 ++- > > boot/image-fdt.c | 15 +-- > > cmd/booti.c | 2 +- > > cmd/bootz.c | 2 +- > > cmd/load.c | 4 +- > > drivers/iommu/apple_dart.c | 6 +- > > drivers/iommu/sandbox_iommu.c | 6 +- > > fs/fs.c | 2 +- > > include/lmb.h | 23 ++--- > > lib/lmb.c | 48 ++++------ > > test/lib/lmb.c | 150 +++++++++++++++--------------- > > 18 files changed, 150 insertions(+), 159 deletions(-) > > This negates any code-size advantage of dropping the lmb parameter. > > All of these are LMB_NONE. Can we have a separate function (e.g. > lmb_alloc_type()) for when we actually need to specify the type? We will be passing different values when we call the LMB API's from the EFI allocation function. This is only adding a parameter to the allocation API's, which I believe is better than adding separate functions which take a flag parameter only to be called from the EFI subsystem. -sughosh
Hi Sughosh, On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 02:40, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 at 05:02, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 00:04, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > Add a flags parameter to the LMB API functions. The parameter can then > > > be used to pass any other type of reservations or allocations needed > > > by the callers. These will be used in a subsequent set of changes for > > > allocation requests coming from the EFI subsystem. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> > > > --- > > > Changes since rfc: New patch > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-apple/board.c | 17 ++-- > > > arch/arm/mach-snapdragon/board.c | 2 +- > > > arch/arm/mach-stm32mp/dram_init.c | 4 +- > > > arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/mp.c | 2 +- > > > arch/powerpc/lib/bootm.c | 2 +- > > > board/xilinx/common/board.c | 4 +- > > > boot/bootm.c | 5 +- > > > boot/image-board.c | 15 ++- > > > boot/image-fdt.c | 15 +-- > > > cmd/booti.c | 2 +- > > > cmd/bootz.c | 2 +- > > > cmd/load.c | 4 +- > > > drivers/iommu/apple_dart.c | 6 +- > > > drivers/iommu/sandbox_iommu.c | 6 +- > > > fs/fs.c | 2 +- > > > include/lmb.h | 23 ++--- > > > lib/lmb.c | 48 ++++------ > > > test/lib/lmb.c | 150 +++++++++++++++--------------- > > > 18 files changed, 150 insertions(+), 159 deletions(-) > > > > This negates any code-size advantage of dropping the lmb parameter. > > > > All of these are LMB_NONE. Can we have a separate function (e.g. > > lmb_alloc_type()) for when we actually need to specify the type? > > We will be passing different values when we call the LMB API's from > the EFI allocation function. This is only adding a parameter to the > allocation API's, which I believe is better than adding separate > functions which take a flag parameter only to be called from the EFI > subsystem. No i believe it is worse, unless there are a lot of such functions. The flags are a special case, not the common case. Regards, SImon
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 20:56, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi Sughosh, > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 02:40, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 at 05:02, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 00:04, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Add a flags parameter to the LMB API functions. The parameter can then > > > > be used to pass any other type of reservations or allocations needed > > > > by the callers. These will be used in a subsequent set of changes for > > > > allocation requests coming from the EFI subsystem. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> > > > > --- > > > > Changes since rfc: New patch > > > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-apple/board.c | 17 ++-- > > > > arch/arm/mach-snapdragon/board.c | 2 +- > > > > arch/arm/mach-stm32mp/dram_init.c | 4 +- > > > > arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/mp.c | 2 +- > > > > arch/powerpc/lib/bootm.c | 2 +- > > > > board/xilinx/common/board.c | 4 +- > > > > boot/bootm.c | 5 +- > > > > boot/image-board.c | 15 ++- > > > > boot/image-fdt.c | 15 +-- > > > > cmd/booti.c | 2 +- > > > > cmd/bootz.c | 2 +- > > > > cmd/load.c | 4 +- > > > > drivers/iommu/apple_dart.c | 6 +- > > > > drivers/iommu/sandbox_iommu.c | 6 +- > > > > fs/fs.c | 2 +- > > > > include/lmb.h | 23 ++--- > > > > lib/lmb.c | 48 ++++------ > > > > test/lib/lmb.c | 150 +++++++++++++++--------------- > > > > 18 files changed, 150 insertions(+), 159 deletions(-) > > > > > > This negates any code-size advantage of dropping the lmb parameter. > > > > > > All of these are LMB_NONE. Can we have a separate function (e.g. > > > lmb_alloc_type()) for when we actually need to specify the type? > > > > We will be passing different values when we call the LMB API's from > > the EFI allocation function. This is only adding a parameter to the > > allocation API's, which I believe is better than adding separate > > functions which take a flag parameter only to be called from the EFI > > subsystem. > > No i believe it is worse, unless there are a lot of such functions. > The flags are a special case, not the common case. I have done some size impact tests on the two scenarios, one where we have a common set of lmb allocation API functions, with an added flags parameter, and second where we have separate API's to be called from the EFI memory module. I have put out the results of the size impact [1]. You will see that with common API's, we are not losing much even on boards with EFI_LOADER disabled. But otoh, on boards which have EFI_LOADER enabled, the gains are pretty significant. I believe we should reconsider using a common LMB API with the flags parameter. -sughosh [1] - https://gist.github.com/sughoshg/a20207f26e19238fef86f710134d6efd > > Regards, > SImon
Hi Sughosh, On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 at 05:55, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 20:56, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 02:40, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 at 05:02, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 00:04, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Add a flags parameter to the LMB API functions. The parameter can then > > > > > be used to pass any other type of reservations or allocations needed > > > > > by the callers. These will be used in a subsequent set of changes for > > > > > allocation requests coming from the EFI subsystem. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> > > > > > --- > > > > > Changes since rfc: New patch > > > > > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-apple/board.c | 17 ++-- > > > > > arch/arm/mach-snapdragon/board.c | 2 +- > > > > > arch/arm/mach-stm32mp/dram_init.c | 4 +- > > > > > arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/mp.c | 2 +- > > > > > arch/powerpc/lib/bootm.c | 2 +- > > > > > board/xilinx/common/board.c | 4 +- > > > > > boot/bootm.c | 5 +- > > > > > boot/image-board.c | 15 ++- > > > > > boot/image-fdt.c | 15 +-- > > > > > cmd/booti.c | 2 +- > > > > > cmd/bootz.c | 2 +- > > > > > cmd/load.c | 4 +- > > > > > drivers/iommu/apple_dart.c | 6 +- > > > > > drivers/iommu/sandbox_iommu.c | 6 +- > > > > > fs/fs.c | 2 +- > > > > > include/lmb.h | 23 ++--- > > > > > lib/lmb.c | 48 ++++------ > > > > > test/lib/lmb.c | 150 +++++++++++++++--------------- > > > > > 18 files changed, 150 insertions(+), 159 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > This negates any code-size advantage of dropping the lmb parameter. > > > > > > > > All of these are LMB_NONE. Can we have a separate function (e.g. > > > > lmb_alloc_type()) for when we actually need to specify the type? > > > > > > We will be passing different values when we call the LMB API's from > > > the EFI allocation function. This is only adding a parameter to the > > > allocation API's, which I believe is better than adding separate > > > functions which take a flag parameter only to be called from the EFI > > > subsystem. > > > > No i believe it is worse, unless there are a lot of such functions. > > The flags are a special case, not the common case. > > I have done some size impact tests on the two scenarios, one where we > have a common set of lmb allocation API functions, with an added flags > parameter, and second where we have separate API's to be called from > the EFI memory module. I have put out the results of the size impact > [1]. > > You will see that with common API's, we are not losing much even on > boards with EFI_LOADER disabled. But otoh, on boards which have > EFI_LOADER enabled, the gains are pretty significant. I believe we > should reconsider using a common LMB API with the flags parameter. Thanks for looking at it. Did you do special versions of just lmb_alloc() and lmb_add() which call the flags versions? It seems that there is no size advantage with EFI_LOADER and only a small one with !EFI_LOADER. Can you please point me to the code? Regards, Simon > > [1] - https://gist.github.com/sughoshg/a20207f26e19238fef86f710134d6efd > > > > > Regards, > > SImon
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 at 03:21, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi Sughosh, > > On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 at 05:55, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 20:56, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 02:40, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 at 05:02, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 00:04, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Add a flags parameter to the LMB API functions. The parameter can then > > > > > > be used to pass any other type of reservations or allocations needed > > > > > > by the callers. These will be used in a subsequent set of changes for > > > > > > allocation requests coming from the EFI subsystem. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Changes since rfc: New patch > > > > > > > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-apple/board.c | 17 ++-- > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-snapdragon/board.c | 2 +- > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-stm32mp/dram_init.c | 4 +- > > > > > > arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/mp.c | 2 +- > > > > > > arch/powerpc/lib/bootm.c | 2 +- > > > > > > board/xilinx/common/board.c | 4 +- > > > > > > boot/bootm.c | 5 +- > > > > > > boot/image-board.c | 15 ++- > > > > > > boot/image-fdt.c | 15 +-- > > > > > > cmd/booti.c | 2 +- > > > > > > cmd/bootz.c | 2 +- > > > > > > cmd/load.c | 4 +- > > > > > > drivers/iommu/apple_dart.c | 6 +- > > > > > > drivers/iommu/sandbox_iommu.c | 6 +- > > > > > > fs/fs.c | 2 +- > > > > > > include/lmb.h | 23 ++--- > > > > > > lib/lmb.c | 48 ++++------ > > > > > > test/lib/lmb.c | 150 +++++++++++++++--------------- > > > > > > 18 files changed, 150 insertions(+), 159 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > This negates any code-size advantage of dropping the lmb parameter. > > > > > > > > > > All of these are LMB_NONE. Can we have a separate function (e.g. > > > > > lmb_alloc_type()) for when we actually need to specify the type? > > > > > > > > We will be passing different values when we call the LMB API's from > > > > the EFI allocation function. This is only adding a parameter to the > > > > allocation API's, which I believe is better than adding separate > > > > functions which take a flag parameter only to be called from the EFI > > > > subsystem. > > > > > > No i believe it is worse, unless there are a lot of such functions. > > > The flags are a special case, not the common case. > > > > I have done some size impact tests on the two scenarios, one where we > > have a common set of lmb allocation API functions, with an added flags > > parameter, and second where we have separate API's to be called from > > the EFI memory module. I have put out the results of the size impact > > [1]. > > > > You will see that with common API's, we are not losing much even on > > boards with EFI_LOADER disabled. But otoh, on boards which have > > EFI_LOADER enabled, the gains are pretty significant. I believe we > > should reconsider using a common LMB API with the flags parameter. > > Thanks for looking at it. > > Did you do special versions of just lmb_alloc() and lmb_add() which > call the flags versions? It seems that there is no size advantage with > EFI_LOADER and only a small one with !EFI_LOADER. Can you please point > me to the code? For the separate API version, I introduced new versions lmb_alloc_flags(), lmb_alloc_base_flags(), lmb_alloc_addr_flags() and lmb_free_flags(), which are being called from the EFI memory module. I have pushed the two branches [1] [2] on my github. Please take a look. Btw, both these branches are based on your v5 of the alist patches, and also incorporate the stack based implementation for running the lmb tests. So except for either having common API's, or not, there are no other differences between the two. Thanks. -sughosh [1] - https://github.com/sughoshg/u-boot/tree/lmb_efi_common_apis_nrfc_v2 [2] - https://github.com/sughoshg/u-boot/tree/lmb_efi_separate_flags_apis_nrfc_v2 > > Regards, > Simon > > > > > > [1] - https://gist.github.com/sughoshg/a20207f26e19238fef86f710134d6efd > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > SImon
Hi Sughosh, On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 at 00:32, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 at 03:21, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 at 05:55, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 20:56, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 02:40, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 at 05:02, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 00:04, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Add a flags parameter to the LMB API functions. The parameter can then > > > > > > > be used to pass any other type of reservations or allocations needed > > > > > > > by the callers. These will be used in a subsequent set of changes for > > > > > > > allocation requests coming from the EFI subsystem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > Changes since rfc: New patch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-apple/board.c | 17 ++-- > > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-snapdragon/board.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-stm32mp/dram_init.c | 4 +- > > > > > > > arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/mp.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > arch/powerpc/lib/bootm.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > board/xilinx/common/board.c | 4 +- > > > > > > > boot/bootm.c | 5 +- > > > > > > > boot/image-board.c | 15 ++- > > > > > > > boot/image-fdt.c | 15 +-- > > > > > > > cmd/booti.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > cmd/bootz.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > cmd/load.c | 4 +- > > > > > > > drivers/iommu/apple_dart.c | 6 +- > > > > > > > drivers/iommu/sandbox_iommu.c | 6 +- > > > > > > > fs/fs.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > include/lmb.h | 23 ++--- > > > > > > > lib/lmb.c | 48 ++++------ > > > > > > > test/lib/lmb.c | 150 +++++++++++++++--------------- > > > > > > > 18 files changed, 150 insertions(+), 159 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > This negates any code-size advantage of dropping the lmb parameter. > > > > > > > > > > > > All of these are LMB_NONE. Can we have a separate function (e.g. > > > > > > lmb_alloc_type()) for when we actually need to specify the type? > > > > > > > > > > We will be passing different values when we call the LMB API's from > > > > > the EFI allocation function. This is only adding a parameter to the > > > > > allocation API's, which I believe is better than adding separate > > > > > functions which take a flag parameter only to be called from the EFI > > > > > subsystem. > > > > > > > > No i believe it is worse, unless there are a lot of such functions. > > > > The flags are a special case, not the common case. > > > > > > I have done some size impact tests on the two scenarios, one where we > > > have a common set of lmb allocation API functions, with an added flags > > > parameter, and second where we have separate API's to be called from > > > the EFI memory module. I have put out the results of the size impact > > > [1]. > > > > > > You will see that with common API's, we are not losing much even on > > > boards with EFI_LOADER disabled. But otoh, on boards which have > > > EFI_LOADER enabled, the gains are pretty significant. I believe we > > > should reconsider using a common LMB API with the flags parameter. > > > > Thanks for looking at it. > > > > Did you do special versions of just lmb_alloc() and lmb_add() which > > call the flags versions? It seems that there is no size advantage with > > EFI_LOADER and only a small one with !EFI_LOADER. Can you please point > > me to the code? > > For the separate API version, I introduced new versions > lmb_alloc_flags(), lmb_alloc_base_flags(), lmb_alloc_addr_flags() and > lmb_free_flags(), which are being called from the EFI memory module. I > have pushed the two branches [1] [2] on my github. Please take a look. > > Btw, both these branches are based on your v5 of the alist patches, > and also incorporate the stack based implementation for running the > lmb tests. So except for either having common API's, or not, there are > no other differences between the two. Thanks. Thanks for the info. The non-flags functions can call the flags functions, so that you don't create a new code path. Something like this: diff --git a/lib/lmb.c b/lib/lmb.c index 726e6c38227..0a251c587fe 100644 --- a/lib/lmb.c +++ b/lib/lmb.c @@ -528,7 +528,7 @@ long lmb_free_flags(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, long lmb_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size) { - return __lmb_free(base, size); + return lmb_free_flags(base, size, LMB_NONE); } long lmb_reserve_flags(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, enum lmb_flags flags) @@ -624,7 +624,7 @@ static phys_addr_t __lmb_alloc_base(phys_size_t size, ulong align, phys_addr_t lmb_alloc(phys_size_t size, ulong align) { - return lmb_alloc_base(size, align, LMB_ALLOC_ANYWHERE); + return lmb_alloc_flags(size, align, LMB_NONE); } phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_flags(phys_size_t size, ulong align, uint flags) @@ -635,15 +635,7 @@ phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_flags(phys_size_t size, ulong align, uint flags) phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_base(phys_size_t size, ulong align, phys_addr_t max_addr) { - phys_addr_t alloc; - - alloc = __lmb_alloc_base(size, align, max_addr, LMB_NONE); - - if (alloc == 0) - printf("ERROR: Failed to allocate 0x%lx bytes below 0x%lx.\n", - (ulong)size, (ulong)max_addr); - - return alloc; + return lmb_alloc_base_flags(size, align, max_addr, LMB_NONE); } phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_base_flags(phys_size_t size, ulong align, @@ -691,7 +683,7 @@ static phys_addr_t __lmb_alloc_addr(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, */ phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_addr(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size) { - return __lmb_alloc_addr(base, size, LMB_NONE); + return lmb_alloc_addr_flags(base, size, LMB_NONE); } phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_addr_flags(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, But it only saves about 40 bytes on Thumb2. You can save another 16 by using the placeholder API: diff --git a/lib/lmb.c b/lib/lmb.c index 0a251c587fe..f6c8f06629c 100644 --- a/lib/lmb.c +++ b/lib/lmb.c @@ -416,13 +416,12 @@ static long lmb_add_region_flags(struct alist *lmb_rgn_lst, phys_addr_t base, if (coalesced) return coalesced; - if (alist_full(lmb_rgn_lst) && - !alist_expand_by(lmb_rgn_lst, lmb_rgn_lst->alloc)) + if (!alist_add_placeholder(lmb_rgn_lst)) return -1; rgn = lmb_rgn_lst->data; /* Couldn't coalesce the LMB, so add it to the sorted table. */ - for (i = lmb_rgn_lst->count; i >= 0; i--) { + for (i = lmb_rgn_lst->count - 1; i >= 0; i--) { if (i && base < rgn[i - 1].base) { rgn[i] = rgn[i - 1]; } else { @@ -433,8 +432,6 @@ static long lmb_add_region_flags(struct alist *lmb_rgn_lst, phys_addr_t base, } } - lmb_rgn_lst->count++; - return 0; } @@ -444,7 +441,6 @@ static long lmb_add_region(struct alist *lmb_rgn_lst, phys_addr_t base, return lmb_add_region_flags(lmb_rgn_lst, base, size, LMB_NONE); } -/* This routine may be called with relocation disabled. */ long lmb_add(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size) { long ret; -- 2.34.1 (patches are a bit rough, but I didn't think it worth sending them to the ML as real patches) If I am correct and we don't need to publish events, then that will save a little more space. Regards, Simon > > -sughosh > > [1] - https://github.com/sughoshg/u-boot/tree/lmb_efi_common_apis_nrfc_v2 > [2] - https://github.com/sughoshg/u-boot/tree/lmb_efi_separate_flags_apis_nrfc_v2 > > > > > Regards, > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > [1] - https://gist.github.com/sughoshg/a20207f26e19238fef86f710134d6efd > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > SImon
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 at 19:58, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi Sughosh, > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 at 00:32, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 at 03:21, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 at 05:55, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 20:56, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 02:40, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 at 05:02, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 00:04, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Add a flags parameter to the LMB API functions. The parameter can then > > > > > > > > be used to pass any other type of reservations or allocations needed > > > > > > > > by the callers. These will be used in a subsequent set of changes for > > > > > > > > allocation requests coming from the EFI subsystem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Changes since rfc: New patch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-apple/board.c | 17 ++-- > > > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-snapdragon/board.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-stm32mp/dram_init.c | 4 +- > > > > > > > > arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/mp.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > arch/powerpc/lib/bootm.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > board/xilinx/common/board.c | 4 +- > > > > > > > > boot/bootm.c | 5 +- > > > > > > > > boot/image-board.c | 15 ++- > > > > > > > > boot/image-fdt.c | 15 +-- > > > > > > > > cmd/booti.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > cmd/bootz.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > cmd/load.c | 4 +- > > > > > > > > drivers/iommu/apple_dart.c | 6 +- > > > > > > > > drivers/iommu/sandbox_iommu.c | 6 +- > > > > > > > > fs/fs.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > include/lmb.h | 23 ++--- > > > > > > > > lib/lmb.c | 48 ++++------ > > > > > > > > test/lib/lmb.c | 150 +++++++++++++++--------------- > > > > > > > > 18 files changed, 150 insertions(+), 159 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This negates any code-size advantage of dropping the lmb parameter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All of these are LMB_NONE. Can we have a separate function (e.g. > > > > > > > lmb_alloc_type()) for when we actually need to specify the type? > > > > > > > > > > > > We will be passing different values when we call the LMB API's from > > > > > > the EFI allocation function. This is only adding a parameter to the > > > > > > allocation API's, which I believe is better than adding separate > > > > > > functions which take a flag parameter only to be called from the EFI > > > > > > subsystem. > > > > > > > > > > No i believe it is worse, unless there are a lot of such functions. > > > > > The flags are a special case, not the common case. > > > > > > > > I have done some size impact tests on the two scenarios, one where we > > > > have a common set of lmb allocation API functions, with an added flags > > > > parameter, and second where we have separate API's to be called from > > > > the EFI memory module. I have put out the results of the size impact > > > > [1]. > > > > > > > > You will see that with common API's, we are not losing much even on > > > > boards with EFI_LOADER disabled. But otoh, on boards which have > > > > EFI_LOADER enabled, the gains are pretty significant. I believe we > > > > should reconsider using a common LMB API with the flags parameter. > > > > > > Thanks for looking at it. > > > > > > Did you do special versions of just lmb_alloc() and lmb_add() which > > > call the flags versions? It seems that there is no size advantage with > > > EFI_LOADER and only a small one with !EFI_LOADER. Can you please point > > > me to the code? > > > > For the separate API version, I introduced new versions > > lmb_alloc_flags(), lmb_alloc_base_flags(), lmb_alloc_addr_flags() and > > lmb_free_flags(), which are being called from the EFI memory module. I > > have pushed the two branches [1] [2] on my github. Please take a look. > > > > Btw, both these branches are based on your v5 of the alist patches, > > and also incorporate the stack based implementation for running the > > lmb tests. So except for either having common API's, or not, there are > > no other differences between the two. Thanks. > > Thanks for the info. > > The non-flags functions can call the flags functions, so that you > don't create a new code path. Something like this: > > diff --git a/lib/lmb.c b/lib/lmb.c > index 726e6c38227..0a251c587fe 100644 > --- a/lib/lmb.c > +++ b/lib/lmb.c > @@ -528,7 +528,7 @@ long lmb_free_flags(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, > > long lmb_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size) > { > - return __lmb_free(base, size); > + return lmb_free_flags(base, size, LMB_NONE); > } > > long lmb_reserve_flags(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, enum > lmb_flags flags) > @@ -624,7 +624,7 @@ static phys_addr_t __lmb_alloc_base(phys_size_t > size, ulong align, > > phys_addr_t lmb_alloc(phys_size_t size, ulong align) > { > - return lmb_alloc_base(size, align, LMB_ALLOC_ANYWHERE); > + return lmb_alloc_flags(size, align, LMB_NONE); > } > > phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_flags(phys_size_t size, ulong align, uint flags) > @@ -635,15 +635,7 @@ phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_flags(phys_size_t size, > ulong align, uint flags) > > phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_base(phys_size_t size, ulong align, phys_addr_t max_addr) > { > - phys_addr_t alloc; > - > - alloc = __lmb_alloc_base(size, align, max_addr, LMB_NONE); > - > - if (alloc == 0) > - printf("ERROR: Failed to allocate 0x%lx bytes below 0x%lx.\n", > - (ulong)size, (ulong)max_addr); > - > - return alloc; > + return lmb_alloc_base_flags(size, align, max_addr, LMB_NONE); > } > > phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_base_flags(phys_size_t size, ulong align, > @@ -691,7 +683,7 @@ static phys_addr_t __lmb_alloc_addr(phys_addr_t > base, phys_size_t size, > */ > phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_addr(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size) > { > - return __lmb_alloc_addr(base, size, LMB_NONE); > + return lmb_alloc_addr_flags(base, size, LMB_NONE); > } > > phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_addr_flags(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, > > But it only saves about 40 bytes on Thumb2. You can save another 16 by > using the placeholder API: Can you please explain the issue that you see with having a common set of API's with the flags parameter added? The way I see it, the API's are already undergoing a change where we are removing the struct lmb instance as a parameter from all the API functions. With the change that I propose, we are simply replacing the lmb instance parameter with the flags parameter. So arguably we are not adding any additional size here. Also, like the size tests show, we get a pretty good size benefit when the EFI_LOADER is enabled. So, if your argument is to keep the API's similar to their earlier form, I think that they are undergoing a change in any case, so adding the flags parameter is not so much of an issue. If there is any problem that I am missing, I would like to understand that before we go with separate API's. Thanks. -sughosh > > diff --git a/lib/lmb.c b/lib/lmb.c > index 0a251c587fe..f6c8f06629c 100644 > --- a/lib/lmb.c > +++ b/lib/lmb.c > @@ -416,13 +416,12 @@ static long lmb_add_region_flags(struct alist > *lmb_rgn_lst, phys_addr_t base, > if (coalesced) > return coalesced; > > - if (alist_full(lmb_rgn_lst) && > - !alist_expand_by(lmb_rgn_lst, lmb_rgn_lst->alloc)) > + if (!alist_add_placeholder(lmb_rgn_lst)) > return -1; > rgn = lmb_rgn_lst->data; > > /* Couldn't coalesce the LMB, so add it to the sorted table. */ > - for (i = lmb_rgn_lst->count; i >= 0; i--) { > + for (i = lmb_rgn_lst->count - 1; i >= 0; i--) { > if (i && base < rgn[i - 1].base) { > rgn[i] = rgn[i - 1]; > } else { > @@ -433,8 +432,6 @@ static long lmb_add_region_flags(struct alist > *lmb_rgn_lst, phys_addr_t base, > } > } > > - lmb_rgn_lst->count++; > - > return 0; > } > > @@ -444,7 +441,6 @@ static long lmb_add_region(struct alist > *lmb_rgn_lst, phys_addr_t base, > return lmb_add_region_flags(lmb_rgn_lst, base, size, LMB_NONE); > } > > -/* This routine may be called with relocation disabled. */ > long lmb_add(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size) > { > long ret; > > -- > 2.34.1 > > (patches are a bit rough, but I didn't think it worth sending them to > the ML as real patches) > > If I am correct and we don't need to publish events, then that will > save a little more space. > > Regards, > Simon > > > > > -sughosh > > > > [1] - https://github.com/sughoshg/u-boot/tree/lmb_efi_common_apis_nrfc_v2 > > [2] - https://github.com/sughoshg/u-boot/tree/lmb_efi_separate_flags_apis_nrfc_v2 > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] - https://gist.github.com/sughoshg/a20207f26e19238fef86f710134d6efd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > SImon
Hi Sughosh, On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 at 02:25, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 at 19:58, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 at 00:32, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 at 03:21, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > > > On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 at 05:55, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 20:56, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 02:40, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 at 05:02, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 00:04, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Add a flags parameter to the LMB API functions. The parameter can then > > > > > > > > > be used to pass any other type of reservations or allocations needed > > > > > > > > > by the callers. These will be used in a subsequent set of changes for > > > > > > > > > allocation requests coming from the EFI subsystem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > Changes since rfc: New patch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-apple/board.c | 17 ++-- > > > > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-snapdragon/board.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-stm32mp/dram_init.c | 4 +- > > > > > > > > > arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/mp.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > > arch/powerpc/lib/bootm.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > > board/xilinx/common/board.c | 4 +- > > > > > > > > > boot/bootm.c | 5 +- > > > > > > > > > boot/image-board.c | 15 ++- > > > > > > > > > boot/image-fdt.c | 15 +-- > > > > > > > > > cmd/booti.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > > cmd/bootz.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > > cmd/load.c | 4 +- > > > > > > > > > drivers/iommu/apple_dart.c | 6 +- > > > > > > > > > drivers/iommu/sandbox_iommu.c | 6 +- > > > > > > > > > fs/fs.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > > include/lmb.h | 23 ++--- > > > > > > > > > lib/lmb.c | 48 ++++------ > > > > > > > > > test/lib/lmb.c | 150 +++++++++++++++--------------- > > > > > > > > > 18 files changed, 150 insertions(+), 159 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This negates any code-size advantage of dropping the lmb parameter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All of these are LMB_NONE. Can we have a separate function (e.g. > > > > > > > > lmb_alloc_type()) for when we actually need to specify the type? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We will be passing different values when we call the LMB API's from > > > > > > > the EFI allocation function. This is only adding a parameter to the > > > > > > > allocation API's, which I believe is better than adding separate > > > > > > > functions which take a flag parameter only to be called from the EFI > > > > > > > subsystem. > > > > > > > > > > > > No i believe it is worse, unless there are a lot of such functions. > > > > > > The flags are a special case, not the common case. > > > > > > > > > > I have done some size impact tests on the two scenarios, one where we > > > > > have a common set of lmb allocation API functions, with an added flags > > > > > parameter, and second where we have separate API's to be called from > > > > > the EFI memory module. I have put out the results of the size impact > > > > > [1]. > > > > > > > > > > You will see that with common API's, we are not losing much even on > > > > > boards with EFI_LOADER disabled. But otoh, on boards which have > > > > > EFI_LOADER enabled, the gains are pretty significant. I believe we > > > > > should reconsider using a common LMB API with the flags parameter. > > > > > > > > Thanks for looking at it. > > > > > > > > Did you do special versions of just lmb_alloc() and lmb_add() which > > > > call the flags versions? It seems that there is no size advantage with > > > > EFI_LOADER and only a small one with !EFI_LOADER. Can you please point > > > > me to the code? > > > > > > For the separate API version, I introduced new versions > > > lmb_alloc_flags(), lmb_alloc_base_flags(), lmb_alloc_addr_flags() and > > > lmb_free_flags(), which are being called from the EFI memory module. I > > > have pushed the two branches [1] [2] on my github. Please take a look. > > > > > > Btw, both these branches are based on your v5 of the alist patches, > > > and also incorporate the stack based implementation for running the > > > lmb tests. So except for either having common API's, or not, there are > > > no other differences between the two. Thanks. > > > > Thanks for the info. > > > > The non-flags functions can call the flags functions, so that you > > don't create a new code path. Something like this: > > > > diff --git a/lib/lmb.c b/lib/lmb.c > > index 726e6c38227..0a251c587fe 100644 > > --- a/lib/lmb.c > > +++ b/lib/lmb.c > > @@ -528,7 +528,7 @@ long lmb_free_flags(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, > > > > long lmb_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size) > > { > > - return __lmb_free(base, size); > > + return lmb_free_flags(base, size, LMB_NONE); > > } > > > > long lmb_reserve_flags(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, enum > > lmb_flags flags) > > @@ -624,7 +624,7 @@ static phys_addr_t __lmb_alloc_base(phys_size_t > > size, ulong align, > > > > phys_addr_t lmb_alloc(phys_size_t size, ulong align) > > { > > - return lmb_alloc_base(size, align, LMB_ALLOC_ANYWHERE); > > + return lmb_alloc_flags(size, align, LMB_NONE); > > } > > > > phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_flags(phys_size_t size, ulong align, uint flags) > > @@ -635,15 +635,7 @@ phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_flags(phys_size_t size, > > ulong align, uint flags) > > > > phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_base(phys_size_t size, ulong align, phys_addr_t max_addr) > > { > > - phys_addr_t alloc; > > - > > - alloc = __lmb_alloc_base(size, align, max_addr, LMB_NONE); > > - > > - if (alloc == 0) > > - printf("ERROR: Failed to allocate 0x%lx bytes below 0x%lx.\n", > > - (ulong)size, (ulong)max_addr); > > - > > - return alloc; > > + return lmb_alloc_base_flags(size, align, max_addr, LMB_NONE); > > } > > > > phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_base_flags(phys_size_t size, ulong align, > > @@ -691,7 +683,7 @@ static phys_addr_t __lmb_alloc_addr(phys_addr_t > > base, phys_size_t size, > > */ > > phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_addr(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size) > > { > > - return __lmb_alloc_addr(base, size, LMB_NONE); > > + return lmb_alloc_addr_flags(base, size, LMB_NONE); > > } > > > > phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_addr_flags(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, > > > > But it only saves about 40 bytes on Thumb2. You can save another 16 by > > using the placeholder API: > > Can you please explain the issue that you see with having a common set > of API's with the flags parameter added? The way I see it, the API's > are already undergoing a change where we are removing the struct lmb > instance as a parameter from all the API functions. With the change > that I propose, we are simply replacing the lmb instance parameter > with the flags parameter. So arguably we are not adding any additional > size here. Also, like the size tests show, we get a pretty good size > benefit when the EFI_LOADER is enabled. > > So, if your argument is to keep the API's similar to their earlier > form, I think that they are undergoing a change in any case, so adding > the flags parameter is not so much of an issue. If there is any > problem that I am missing, I would like to understand that before we > go with separate API's. Thanks. I thought I explained this already, but perhaps not. We change APIs all the time, so that is not a problem. Almost all calls don't need to pass flags since it is LMB_NONE (which really should be 0, BTW, not BIT(0)). We already have lmb_reserve_flags() and lmb_reserve() to deal with this difference. So passing a parameter which is almost always the same is not helpful for code size. Outside the tests, only one place (boot/image-fdt.c) uses lmb_reserve_flags() - BTW some of these are using the flags version of the function but passing LMB_NONE. Here are the five functions: lmb_reserve lmb_alloc lmb_alloc_base lmb_alloc_addr lmb_free If some of them aren't worth having two versions, then I suppose we don't need them all. But note that if some of my EFI patches make it through code review, we won't need this circular relationship between EFI and lmb, so some of the 'flags' versions can be dropped again. But EFI only even seems to pass LMB_NOOVERWRITE | LMB_NONOTIFY...? Part of my frustration with all of this is that I created an lmb cleanup series[1] nearly a year ago, which was either ignored or blocked (I'm not sure which). That series tidied up the code quite a lot and took much effort. I'm not sure if you even saw it? Finally, it would help the project if you could do some code reviews. For example, how about [2] and [3] - they are very much in your area. Regards, Simon [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=371258&state=* [2] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=417669 [3] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=418212 > > -sughosh > > > > > diff --git a/lib/lmb.c b/lib/lmb.c > > index 0a251c587fe..f6c8f06629c 100644 > > --- a/lib/lmb.c > > +++ b/lib/lmb.c > > @@ -416,13 +416,12 @@ static long lmb_add_region_flags(struct alist > > *lmb_rgn_lst, phys_addr_t base, > > if (coalesced) > > return coalesced; > > > > - if (alist_full(lmb_rgn_lst) && > > - !alist_expand_by(lmb_rgn_lst, lmb_rgn_lst->alloc)) > > + if (!alist_add_placeholder(lmb_rgn_lst)) > > return -1; > > rgn = lmb_rgn_lst->data; > > > > /* Couldn't coalesce the LMB, so add it to the sorted table. */ > > - for (i = lmb_rgn_lst->count; i >= 0; i--) { > > + for (i = lmb_rgn_lst->count - 1; i >= 0; i--) { > > if (i && base < rgn[i - 1].base) { > > rgn[i] = rgn[i - 1]; > > } else { > > @@ -433,8 +432,6 @@ static long lmb_add_region_flags(struct alist > > *lmb_rgn_lst, phys_addr_t base, > > } > > } > > > > - lmb_rgn_lst->count++; > > - > > return 0; > > } > > > > @@ -444,7 +441,6 @@ static long lmb_add_region(struct alist > > *lmb_rgn_lst, phys_addr_t base, > > return lmb_add_region_flags(lmb_rgn_lst, base, size, LMB_NONE); > > } > > > > -/* This routine may be called with relocation disabled. */ > > long lmb_add(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size) > > { > > long ret; > > > > -- > > 2.34.1 > > > > (patches are a bit rough, but I didn't think it worth sending them to > > the ML as real patches) > > > > If I am correct and we don't need to publish events, then that will > > save a little more space. > > > > Regards, > > Simon > > > > > > > > -sughosh > > > > > > [1] - https://github.com/sughoshg/u-boot/tree/lmb_efi_common_apis_nrfc_v2 > > > [2] - https://github.com/sughoshg/u-boot/tree/lmb_efi_separate_flags_apis_nrfc_v2 > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] - https://gist.github.com/sughoshg/a20207f26e19238fef86f710134d6efd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > SImon
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 at 21:28, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi Sughosh, > > On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 at 02:25, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 at 19:58, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 at 00:32, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 at 03:21, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 at 05:55, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 20:56, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 02:40, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 at 05:02, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 00:04, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Add a flags parameter to the LMB API functions. The parameter can then > > > > > > > > > > be used to pass any other type of reservations or allocations needed > > > > > > > > > > by the callers. These will be used in a subsequent set of changes for > > > > > > > > > > allocation requests coming from the EFI subsystem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > Changes since rfc: New patch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-apple/board.c | 17 ++-- > > > > > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-snapdragon/board.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-stm32mp/dram_init.c | 4 +- > > > > > > > > > > arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/mp.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > > > arch/powerpc/lib/bootm.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > > > board/xilinx/common/board.c | 4 +- > > > > > > > > > > boot/bootm.c | 5 +- > > > > > > > > > > boot/image-board.c | 15 ++- > > > > > > > > > > boot/image-fdt.c | 15 +-- > > > > > > > > > > cmd/booti.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > > > cmd/bootz.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > > > cmd/load.c | 4 +- > > > > > > > > > > drivers/iommu/apple_dart.c | 6 +- > > > > > > > > > > drivers/iommu/sandbox_iommu.c | 6 +- > > > > > > > > > > fs/fs.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > > > include/lmb.h | 23 ++--- > > > > > > > > > > lib/lmb.c | 48 ++++------ > > > > > > > > > > test/lib/lmb.c | 150 +++++++++++++++--------------- > > > > > > > > > > 18 files changed, 150 insertions(+), 159 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This negates any code-size advantage of dropping the lmb parameter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All of these are LMB_NONE. Can we have a separate function (e.g. > > > > > > > > > lmb_alloc_type()) for when we actually need to specify the type? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We will be passing different values when we call the LMB API's from > > > > > > > > the EFI allocation function. This is only adding a parameter to the > > > > > > > > allocation API's, which I believe is better than adding separate > > > > > > > > functions which take a flag parameter only to be called from the EFI > > > > > > > > subsystem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No i believe it is worse, unless there are a lot of such functions. > > > > > > > The flags are a special case, not the common case. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have done some size impact tests on the two scenarios, one where we > > > > > > have a common set of lmb allocation API functions, with an added flags > > > > > > parameter, and second where we have separate API's to be called from > > > > > > the EFI memory module. I have put out the results of the size impact > > > > > > [1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > You will see that with common API's, we are not losing much even on > > > > > > boards with EFI_LOADER disabled. But otoh, on boards which have > > > > > > EFI_LOADER enabled, the gains are pretty significant. I believe we > > > > > > should reconsider using a common LMB API with the flags parameter. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for looking at it. > > > > > > > > > > Did you do special versions of just lmb_alloc() and lmb_add() which > > > > > call the flags versions? It seems that there is no size advantage with > > > > > EFI_LOADER and only a small one with !EFI_LOADER. Can you please point > > > > > me to the code? > > > > > > > > For the separate API version, I introduced new versions > > > > lmb_alloc_flags(), lmb_alloc_base_flags(), lmb_alloc_addr_flags() and > > > > lmb_free_flags(), which are being called from the EFI memory module. I > > > > have pushed the two branches [1] [2] on my github. Please take a look. > > > > > > > > Btw, both these branches are based on your v5 of the alist patches, > > > > and also incorporate the stack based implementation for running the > > > > lmb tests. So except for either having common API's, or not, there are > > > > no other differences between the two. Thanks. > > > > > > Thanks for the info. > > > > > > The non-flags functions can call the flags functions, so that you > > > don't create a new code path. Something like this: > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/lmb.c b/lib/lmb.c > > > index 726e6c38227..0a251c587fe 100644 > > > --- a/lib/lmb.c > > > +++ b/lib/lmb.c > > > @@ -528,7 +528,7 @@ long lmb_free_flags(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, > > > > > > long lmb_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size) > > > { > > > - return __lmb_free(base, size); > > > + return lmb_free_flags(base, size, LMB_NONE); > > > } > > > > > > long lmb_reserve_flags(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, enum > > > lmb_flags flags) > > > @@ -624,7 +624,7 @@ static phys_addr_t __lmb_alloc_base(phys_size_t > > > size, ulong align, > > > > > > phys_addr_t lmb_alloc(phys_size_t size, ulong align) > > > { > > > - return lmb_alloc_base(size, align, LMB_ALLOC_ANYWHERE); > > > + return lmb_alloc_flags(size, align, LMB_NONE); > > > } > > > > > > phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_flags(phys_size_t size, ulong align, uint flags) > > > @@ -635,15 +635,7 @@ phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_flags(phys_size_t size, > > > ulong align, uint flags) > > > > > > phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_base(phys_size_t size, ulong align, phys_addr_t max_addr) > > > { > > > - phys_addr_t alloc; > > > - > > > - alloc = __lmb_alloc_base(size, align, max_addr, LMB_NONE); > > > - > > > - if (alloc == 0) > > > - printf("ERROR: Failed to allocate 0x%lx bytes below 0x%lx.\n", > > > - (ulong)size, (ulong)max_addr); > > > - > > > - return alloc; > > > + return lmb_alloc_base_flags(size, align, max_addr, LMB_NONE); > > > } > > > > > > phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_base_flags(phys_size_t size, ulong align, > > > @@ -691,7 +683,7 @@ static phys_addr_t __lmb_alloc_addr(phys_addr_t > > > base, phys_size_t size, > > > */ > > > phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_addr(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size) > > > { > > > - return __lmb_alloc_addr(base, size, LMB_NONE); > > > + return lmb_alloc_addr_flags(base, size, LMB_NONE); > > > } > > > > > > phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_addr_flags(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, > > > > > > But it only saves about 40 bytes on Thumb2. You can save another 16 by > > > using the placeholder API: > > > > Can you please explain the issue that you see with having a common set > > of API's with the flags parameter added? The way I see it, the API's > > are already undergoing a change where we are removing the struct lmb > > instance as a parameter from all the API functions. With the change > > that I propose, we are simply replacing the lmb instance parameter > > with the flags parameter. So arguably we are not adding any additional > > size here. Also, like the size tests show, we get a pretty good size > > benefit when the EFI_LOADER is enabled. > > > > So, if your argument is to keep the API's similar to their earlier > > form, I think that they are undergoing a change in any case, so adding > > the flags parameter is not so much of an issue. If there is any > > problem that I am missing, I would like to understand that before we > > go with separate API's. Thanks. > > I thought I explained this already, but perhaps not. We change APIs > all the time, so that is not a problem. > > Almost all calls don't need to pass flags since it is LMB_NONE (which > really should be 0, BTW, not BIT(0)). We already have > lmb_reserve_flags() and lmb_reserve() to deal with this difference. So > passing a parameter which is almost always the same is not helpful for > code size. Yes, in my earlier response, I did mention this aspect. The size impact is not very high on non-EFI platforms, while pretty good with platforms that enable EFI_LOADER. But since this is your view, I will go with the separate API version so that we make progress. > > Outside the tests, only one place (boot/image-fdt.c) uses > lmb_reserve_flags() - BTW some of these are using the flags version of > the function but passing LMB_NONE. > > Here are the five functions: > > lmb_reserve > lmb_alloc > lmb_alloc_base > lmb_alloc_addr > lmb_free > > If some of them aren't worth having two versions, then I suppose we > don't need them all. But note that if some of my EFI patches make it > through code review, we won't need this circular relationship between > EFI and lmb, so some of the 'flags' versions can be dropped again. Your patch is tweaking the efi_allocate_pool() whereas the changes that I am making are in the efi_allocate_pages(). So even if your approach gets accepted, this will still be needed for efi_allocate_pages() API. > > But EFI only even seems to pass LMB_NOOVERWRITE | LMB_NONOTIFY...? > > Part of my frustration with all of this is that I created an lmb > cleanup series[1] nearly a year ago, which was either ignored or > blocked (I'm not sure which). That series tidied up the code quite a > lot and took much effort. I'm not sure if you even saw it? I wasn't aware of these patches. I started looking into the LMB/EFI memory management only a few months back. > > Finally, it would help the project if you could do some code reviews. > For example, how about [2] and [3] - they are very much in your area. Okay, will do. I will check the patches in detail, but I believe that patch 2 looks fine, but I have concerns about using malloc for efi_allocate_pool(). I will respond to the patch though. Thanks. -sughosh > > Regards, > Simon > > [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=371258&state=* > [2] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=417669 > [3] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=418212 > > > > > > > > -sughosh > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/lmb.c b/lib/lmb.c > > > index 0a251c587fe..f6c8f06629c 100644 > > > --- a/lib/lmb.c > > > +++ b/lib/lmb.c > > > @@ -416,13 +416,12 @@ static long lmb_add_region_flags(struct alist > > > *lmb_rgn_lst, phys_addr_t base, > > > if (coalesced) > > > return coalesced; > > > > > > - if (alist_full(lmb_rgn_lst) && > > > - !alist_expand_by(lmb_rgn_lst, lmb_rgn_lst->alloc)) > > > + if (!alist_add_placeholder(lmb_rgn_lst)) > > > return -1; > > > rgn = lmb_rgn_lst->data; > > > > > > /* Couldn't coalesce the LMB, so add it to the sorted table. */ > > > - for (i = lmb_rgn_lst->count; i >= 0; i--) { > > > + for (i = lmb_rgn_lst->count - 1; i >= 0; i--) { > > > if (i && base < rgn[i - 1].base) { > > > rgn[i] = rgn[i - 1]; > > > } else { > > > @@ -433,8 +432,6 @@ static long lmb_add_region_flags(struct alist > > > *lmb_rgn_lst, phys_addr_t base, > > > } > > > } > > > > > > - lmb_rgn_lst->count++; > > > - > > > return 0; > > > } > > > > > > @@ -444,7 +441,6 @@ static long lmb_add_region(struct alist > > > *lmb_rgn_lst, phys_addr_t base, > > > return lmb_add_region_flags(lmb_rgn_lst, base, size, LMB_NONE); > > > } > > > > > > -/* This routine may be called with relocation disabled. */ > > > long lmb_add(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size) > > > { > > > long ret; > > > > > > -- > > > 2.34.1 > > > > > > (patches are a bit rough, but I didn't think it worth sending them to > > > the ML as real patches) > > > > > > If I am correct and we don't need to publish events, then that will > > > save a little more space. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > > -sughosh > > > > > > > > [1] - https://github.com/sughoshg/u-boot/tree/lmb_efi_common_apis_nrfc_v2 > > > > [2] - https://github.com/sughoshg/u-boot/tree/lmb_efi_separate_flags_apis_nrfc_v2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] - https://gist.github.com/sughoshg/a20207f26e19238fef86f710134d6efd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > SImon
Hi Sughosh, On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 at 02:13, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 at 21:28, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 at 02:25, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 at 19:58, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 at 00:32, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 at 03:21, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 at 05:55, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 20:56, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 02:40, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 at 05:02, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 00:04, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Add a flags parameter to the LMB API functions. The parameter can then > > > > > > > > > > > be used to pass any other type of reservations or allocations needed > > > > > > > > > > > by the callers. These will be used in a subsequent set of changes for > > > > > > > > > > > allocation requests coming from the EFI subsystem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > Changes since rfc: New patch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-apple/board.c | 17 ++-- > > > > > > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-snapdragon/board.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-stm32mp/dram_init.c | 4 +- > > > > > > > > > > > arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/mp.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > > > > arch/powerpc/lib/bootm.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > > > > board/xilinx/common/board.c | 4 +- > > > > > > > > > > > boot/bootm.c | 5 +- > > > > > > > > > > > boot/image-board.c | 15 ++- > > > > > > > > > > > boot/image-fdt.c | 15 +-- > > > > > > > > > > > cmd/booti.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > > > > cmd/bootz.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > > > > cmd/load.c | 4 +- > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/iommu/apple_dart.c | 6 +- > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/iommu/sandbox_iommu.c | 6 +- > > > > > > > > > > > fs/fs.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > > > > include/lmb.h | 23 ++--- > > > > > > > > > > > lib/lmb.c | 48 ++++------ > > > > > > > > > > > test/lib/lmb.c | 150 +++++++++++++++--------------- > > > > > > > > > > > 18 files changed, 150 insertions(+), 159 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This negates any code-size advantage of dropping the lmb parameter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All of these are LMB_NONE. Can we have a separate function (e.g. > > > > > > > > > > lmb_alloc_type()) for when we actually need to specify the type? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We will be passing different values when we call the LMB API's from > > > > > > > > > the EFI allocation function. This is only adding a parameter to the > > > > > > > > > allocation API's, which I believe is better than adding separate > > > > > > > > > functions which take a flag parameter only to be called from the EFI > > > > > > > > > subsystem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No i believe it is worse, unless there are a lot of such functions. > > > > > > > > The flags are a special case, not the common case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have done some size impact tests on the two scenarios, one where we > > > > > > > have a common set of lmb allocation API functions, with an added flags > > > > > > > parameter, and second where we have separate API's to be called from > > > > > > > the EFI memory module. I have put out the results of the size impact > > > > > > > [1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You will see that with common API's, we are not losing much even on > > > > > > > boards with EFI_LOADER disabled. But otoh, on boards which have > > > > > > > EFI_LOADER enabled, the gains are pretty significant. I believe we > > > > > > > should reconsider using a common LMB API with the flags parameter. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for looking at it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you do special versions of just lmb_alloc() and lmb_add() which > > > > > > call the flags versions? It seems that there is no size advantage with > > > > > > EFI_LOADER and only a small one with !EFI_LOADER. Can you please point > > > > > > me to the code? > > > > > > > > > > For the separate API version, I introduced new versions > > > > > lmb_alloc_flags(), lmb_alloc_base_flags(), lmb_alloc_addr_flags() and > > > > > lmb_free_flags(), which are being called from the EFI memory module. I > > > > > have pushed the two branches [1] [2] on my github. Please take a look. > > > > > > > > > > Btw, both these branches are based on your v5 of the alist patches, > > > > > and also incorporate the stack based implementation for running the > > > > > lmb tests. So except for either having common API's, or not, there are > > > > > no other differences between the two. Thanks. > > > > > > > > Thanks for the info. > > > > > > > > The non-flags functions can call the flags functions, so that you > > > > don't create a new code path. Something like this: > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/lmb.c b/lib/lmb.c > > > > index 726e6c38227..0a251c587fe 100644 > > > > --- a/lib/lmb.c > > > > +++ b/lib/lmb.c > > > > @@ -528,7 +528,7 @@ long lmb_free_flags(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, > > > > > > > > long lmb_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size) > > > > { > > > > - return __lmb_free(base, size); > > > > + return lmb_free_flags(base, size, LMB_NONE); > > > > } > > > > > > > > long lmb_reserve_flags(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, enum > > > > lmb_flags flags) > > > > @@ -624,7 +624,7 @@ static phys_addr_t __lmb_alloc_base(phys_size_t > > > > size, ulong align, > > > > > > > > phys_addr_t lmb_alloc(phys_size_t size, ulong align) > > > > { > > > > - return lmb_alloc_base(size, align, LMB_ALLOC_ANYWHERE); > > > > + return lmb_alloc_flags(size, align, LMB_NONE); > > > > } > > > > > > > > phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_flags(phys_size_t size, ulong align, uint flags) > > > > @@ -635,15 +635,7 @@ phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_flags(phys_size_t size, > > > > ulong align, uint flags) > > > > > > > > phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_base(phys_size_t size, ulong align, phys_addr_t max_addr) > > > > { > > > > - phys_addr_t alloc; > > > > - > > > > - alloc = __lmb_alloc_base(size, align, max_addr, LMB_NONE); > > > > - > > > > - if (alloc == 0) > > > > - printf("ERROR: Failed to allocate 0x%lx bytes below 0x%lx.\n", > > > > - (ulong)size, (ulong)max_addr); > > > > - > > > > - return alloc; > > > > + return lmb_alloc_base_flags(size, align, max_addr, LMB_NONE); > > > > } > > > > > > > > phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_base_flags(phys_size_t size, ulong align, > > > > @@ -691,7 +683,7 @@ static phys_addr_t __lmb_alloc_addr(phys_addr_t > > > > base, phys_size_t size, > > > > */ > > > > phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_addr(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size) > > > > { > > > > - return __lmb_alloc_addr(base, size, LMB_NONE); > > > > + return lmb_alloc_addr_flags(base, size, LMB_NONE); > > > > } > > > > > > > > phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_addr_flags(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, > > > > > > > > But it only saves about 40 bytes on Thumb2. You can save another 16 by > > > > using the placeholder API: > > > > > > Can you please explain the issue that you see with having a common set > > > of API's with the flags parameter added? The way I see it, the API's > > > are already undergoing a change where we are removing the struct lmb > > > instance as a parameter from all the API functions. With the change > > > that I propose, we are simply replacing the lmb instance parameter > > > with the flags parameter. So arguably we are not adding any additional > > > size here. Also, like the size tests show, we get a pretty good size > > > benefit when the EFI_LOADER is enabled. > > > > > > So, if your argument is to keep the API's similar to their earlier > > > form, I think that they are undergoing a change in any case, so adding > > > the flags parameter is not so much of an issue. If there is any > > > problem that I am missing, I would like to understand that before we > > > go with separate API's. Thanks. > > > > I thought I explained this already, but perhaps not. We change APIs > > all the time, so that is not a problem. > > > > Almost all calls don't need to pass flags since it is LMB_NONE (which > > really should be 0, BTW, not BIT(0)). We already have > > lmb_reserve_flags() and lmb_reserve() to deal with this difference. So > > passing a parameter which is almost always the same is not helpful for > > code size. > > Yes, in my earlier response, I did mention this aspect. The size > impact is not very high on non-EFI platforms, while pretty good with > platforms that enable EFI_LOADER. But since this is your view, I will > go with the separate API version so that we make progress. > > > > > Outside the tests, only one place (boot/image-fdt.c) uses > > lmb_reserve_flags() - BTW some of these are using the flags version of > > the function but passing LMB_NONE. > > > > Here are the five functions: > > > > lmb_reserve > > lmb_alloc > > lmb_alloc_base > > lmb_alloc_addr > > lmb_free > > > > If some of them aren't worth having two versions, then I suppose we > > don't need them all. But note that if some of my EFI patches make it > > through code review, we won't need this circular relationship between > > EFI and lmb, so some of the 'flags' versions can be dropped again. > > Your patch is tweaking the efi_allocate_pool() whereas the changes > that I am making are in the efi_allocate_pages(). So even if your > approach gets accepted, this will still be needed for > efi_allocate_pages() API. Yes, I am not trying to change or remove APIs. > > > > > But EFI only even seems to pass LMB_NOOVERWRITE | LMB_NONOTIFY...? > > > > Part of my frustration with all of this is that I created an lmb > > cleanup series[1] nearly a year ago, which was either ignored or > > blocked (I'm not sure which). That series tidied up the code quite a > > lot and took much effort. I'm not sure if you even saw it? > > I wasn't aware of these patches. I started looking into the LMB/EFI > memory management only a few months back. > > > > > Finally, it would help the project if you could do some code reviews. > > For example, how about [2] and [3] - they are very much in your area. > > Okay, will do. I will check the patches in detail, but I believe that > patch 2 looks fine, but I have concerns about using malloc for > efi_allocate_pool(). I will respond to the patch though. Thanks. Thank you. Regards, Simon > > > > [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=371258&state=* > > [2] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=417669 > > [3] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=418212 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -sughosh > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/lmb.c b/lib/lmb.c > > > > index 0a251c587fe..f6c8f06629c 100644 > > > > --- a/lib/lmb.c > > > > +++ b/lib/lmb.c > > > > @@ -416,13 +416,12 @@ static long lmb_add_region_flags(struct alist > > > > *lmb_rgn_lst, phys_addr_t base, > > > > if (coalesced) > > > > return coalesced; > > > > > > > > - if (alist_full(lmb_rgn_lst) && > > > > - !alist_expand_by(lmb_rgn_lst, lmb_rgn_lst->alloc)) > > > > + if (!alist_add_placeholder(lmb_rgn_lst)) > > > > return -1; > > > > rgn = lmb_rgn_lst->data; > > > > > > > > /* Couldn't coalesce the LMB, so add it to the sorted table. */ > > > > - for (i = lmb_rgn_lst->count; i >= 0; i--) { > > > > + for (i = lmb_rgn_lst->count - 1; i >= 0; i--) { > > > > if (i && base < rgn[i - 1].base) { > > > > rgn[i] = rgn[i - 1]; > > > > } else { > > > > @@ -433,8 +432,6 @@ static long lmb_add_region_flags(struct alist > > > > *lmb_rgn_lst, phys_addr_t base, > > > > } > > > > } > > > > > > > > - lmb_rgn_lst->count++; > > > > - > > > > return 0; > > > > } > > > > > > > > @@ -444,7 +441,6 @@ static long lmb_add_region(struct alist > > > > *lmb_rgn_lst, phys_addr_t base, > > > > return lmb_add_region_flags(lmb_rgn_lst, base, size, LMB_NONE); > > > > } > > > > > > > > -/* This routine may be called with relocation disabled. */ > > > > long lmb_add(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size) > > > > { > > > > long ret; > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 2.34.1 > > > > > > > > (patches are a bit rough, but I didn't think it worth sending them to > > > > the ML as real patches) > > > > > > > > If I am correct and we don't need to publish events, then that will > > > > save a little more space. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -sughosh > > > > > > > > > > [1] - https://github.com/sughoshg/u-boot/tree/lmb_efi_common_apis_nrfc_v2 > > > > > [2] - https://github.com/sughoshg/u-boot/tree/lmb_efi_separate_flags_apis_nrfc_v2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] - https://gist.github.com/sughoshg/a20207f26e19238fef86f710134d6efd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > SImon
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-apple/board.c b/arch/arm/mach-apple/board.c index 0b6d290b8a..72b1ab9053 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-apple/board.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-apple/board.c @@ -778,15 +778,18 @@ int board_late_init(void) /* somewhat based on the Linux Kernel boot requirements: * align by 2M and maximal FDT size 2M */ - status |= env_set_hex("loadaddr", lmb_alloc(SZ_1G, SZ_2M)); - status |= env_set_hex("fdt_addr_r", lmb_alloc(SZ_2M, SZ_2M)); - status |= env_set_hex("kernel_addr_r", lmb_alloc(SZ_128M, SZ_2M)); - status |= env_set_hex("ramdisk_addr_r", lmb_alloc(SZ_1G, SZ_2M)); + status |= env_set_hex("loadaddr", lmb_alloc(SZ_1G, SZ_2M, LMB_NONE)); + status |= env_set_hex("fdt_addr_r", lmb_alloc(SZ_2M, SZ_2M, LMB_NONE)); + status |= env_set_hex("kernel_addr_r", lmb_alloc(SZ_128M, SZ_2M, + LMB_NONE)); + status |= env_set_hex("ramdisk_addr_r", lmb_alloc(SZ_1G, SZ_2M, + LMB_NONE)); status |= env_set_hex("kernel_comp_addr_r", - lmb_alloc(KERNEL_COMP_SIZE, SZ_2M)); + lmb_alloc(KERNEL_COMP_SIZE, SZ_2M, LMB_NONE)); status |= env_set_hex("kernel_comp_size", KERNEL_COMP_SIZE); - status |= env_set_hex("scriptaddr", lmb_alloc(SZ_4M, SZ_2M)); - status |= env_set_hex("pxefile_addr_r", lmb_alloc(SZ_4M, SZ_2M)); + status |= env_set_hex("scriptaddr", lmb_alloc(SZ_4M, SZ_2M, LMB_NONE)); + status |= env_set_hex("pxefile_addr_r", lmb_alloc(SZ_4M, SZ_2M, + LMB_NONE)); if (status) log_warning("late_init: Failed to set run time variables\n"); diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-snapdragon/board.c b/arch/arm/mach-snapdragon/board.c index 22a7d2a637..151d36d7eb 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-snapdragon/board.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-snapdragon/board.c @@ -275,7 +275,7 @@ void __weak qcom_late_init(void) #define KERNEL_COMP_SIZE SZ_64M -#define addr_alloc(size) lmb_alloc(size, SZ_2M) +#define addr_alloc(size) lmb_alloc(size, SZ_2M, LMB_NONE) /* Stolen from arch/arm/mach-apple/board.c */ int board_late_init(void) diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-stm32mp/dram_init.c b/arch/arm/mach-stm32mp/dram_init.c index e8b0a38be1..97d894d05f 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-stm32mp/dram_init.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-stm32mp/dram_init.c @@ -58,11 +58,11 @@ phys_addr_t board_get_usable_ram_top(phys_size_t total_size) gd->ram_top = clamp_val(gd->ram_top, 0, SZ_4G - 1); /* found enough not-reserved memory to relocated U-Boot */ - lmb_add(gd->ram_base, gd->ram_top - gd->ram_base); + lmb_add(gd->ram_base, gd->ram_top - gd->ram_base, LMB_NONE); boot_fdt_add_mem_rsv_regions((void *)gd->fdt_blob); /* add 8M for reserved memory for display, fdt, gd,... */ size = ALIGN(SZ_8M + CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_LEN + total_size, MMU_SECTION_SIZE), - reg = lmb_alloc(size, MMU_SECTION_SIZE); + reg = lmb_alloc(size, MMU_SECTION_SIZE, LMB_NONE); if (!reg) reg = gd->ram_top - size; diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/mp.c b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/mp.c index bed465cb2c..8918a401fa 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/mp.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/mp.c @@ -412,7 +412,7 @@ void cpu_mp_lmb_reserve(void) { u32 bootpg = determine_mp_bootpg(NULL); - lmb_reserve(bootpg, 4096); + lmb_reserve(bootpg, 4096, LMB_NONE); } void setup_mp(void) diff --git a/arch/powerpc/lib/bootm.c b/arch/powerpc/lib/bootm.c index 6c35664ff3..350cddf1dd 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/lib/bootm.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/lib/bootm.c @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ void arch_lmb_reserve(void) ulong base = bootmap_base + size; printf("WARNING: adjusting available memory from 0x%lx to 0x%llx\n", size, (unsigned long long)bootm_size); - lmb_reserve(base, bootm_size - size); + lmb_reserve(base, bootm_size - size, LMB_NONE); } arch_lmb_reserve_generic(get_sp(), gd->ram_top, 4096); diff --git a/board/xilinx/common/board.c b/board/xilinx/common/board.c index f04c92a70f..1fcf7c3d8f 100644 --- a/board/xilinx/common/board.c +++ b/board/xilinx/common/board.c @@ -683,10 +683,10 @@ phys_addr_t board_get_usable_ram_top(phys_size_t total_size) panic("Not 64bit aligned DT location: %p\n", gd->fdt_blob); /* found enough not-reserved memory to relocated U-Boot */ - lmb_add(gd->ram_base, gd->ram_size); + lmb_add(gd->ram_base, gd->ram_size, LMB_NONE); boot_fdt_add_mem_rsv_regions((void *)gd->fdt_blob); size = ALIGN(CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_LEN + total_size, MMU_SECTION_SIZE); - reg = lmb_alloc(size, MMU_SECTION_SIZE); + reg = lmb_alloc(size, MMU_SECTION_SIZE, LMB_NONE); if (!reg) reg = gd->ram_top - size; diff --git a/boot/bootm.c b/boot/bootm.c index 2689f36977..9feedd72da 100644 --- a/boot/bootm.c +++ b/boot/bootm.c @@ -621,7 +621,7 @@ static int bootm_load_os(struct bootm_headers *images, int boot_progress) if (os.type == IH_TYPE_KERNEL_NOLOAD && os.comp != IH_COMP_NONE) { ulong req_size = ALIGN(image_len * 4, SZ_1M); - load = lmb_alloc(req_size, SZ_2M); + load = lmb_alloc(req_size, SZ_2M, LMB_NONE); if (!load) return 1; os.load = load; @@ -696,7 +696,8 @@ static int bootm_load_os(struct bootm_headers *images, int boot_progress) } if (CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(LMB)) - lmb_reserve(images->os.load, (load_end - images->os.load)); + lmb_reserve(images->os.load, (load_end - images->os.load), + LMB_NONE); return 0; } diff --git a/boot/image-board.c b/boot/image-board.c index 99ee7968ba..b3281d66a4 100644 --- a/boot/image-board.c +++ b/boot/image-board.c @@ -560,15 +560,17 @@ int boot_ramdisk_high(ulong rd_data, ulong rd_len, ulong *initrd_start, debug(" in-place initrd\n"); *initrd_start = rd_data; *initrd_end = rd_data + rd_len; - lmb_reserve(rd_data, rd_len); + lmb_reserve(rd_data, rd_len, LMB_NONE); } else { if (initrd_high) *initrd_start = (ulong)lmb_alloc_base(rd_len, 0x1000, - initrd_high); + initrd_high, + LMB_NONE); else *initrd_start = (ulong)lmb_alloc(rd_len, - 0x1000); + 0x1000, + LMB_NONE); if (*initrd_start == 0) { puts("ramdisk - allocation error\n"); @@ -827,7 +829,9 @@ int boot_get_cmdline(ulong *cmd_start, ulong *cmd_end) barg = IF_ENABLED_INT(CONFIG_SYS_BOOT_GET_CMDLINE, CONFIG_SYS_BARGSIZE); cmdline = (char *)(ulong)lmb_alloc_base(barg, 0xf, - env_get_bootm_mapsize() + env_get_bootm_low()); + env_get_bootm_mapsize() + + env_get_bootm_low(), + LMB_NONE); if (!cmdline) return -1; @@ -862,7 +866,8 @@ int boot_get_kbd(struct bd_info **kbd) *kbd = (struct bd_info *)(ulong)lmb_alloc_base(sizeof(struct bd_info), 0xf, env_get_bootm_mapsize() + - env_get_bootm_low()); + env_get_bootm_low(), + LMB_NONE); if (!*kbd) return -1; diff --git a/boot/image-fdt.c b/boot/image-fdt.c index ccafadec0d..589e84c950 100644 --- a/boot/image-fdt.c +++ b/boot/image-fdt.c @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ static void boot_fdt_reserve_region(uint64_t addr, uint64_t size, { long ret; - ret = lmb_reserve_flags(addr, size, flags); + ret = lmb_reserve(addr, size, flags); if (ret >= 0) { debug(" reserving fdt memory region: addr=%llx size=%llx flags=%x\n", (unsigned long long)addr, @@ -185,17 +185,18 @@ int boot_relocate_fdt(char **of_flat_tree, ulong *of_size) if (desired_addr == ~0UL) { /* All ones means use fdt in place */ of_start = fdt_blob; - lmb_reserve(map_to_sysmem(of_start), of_len); + lmb_reserve(map_to_sysmem(of_start), of_len, LMB_NONE); disable_relocation = 1; } else if (desired_addr) { - addr = lmb_alloc_base(of_len, 0x1000, desired_addr); + addr = lmb_alloc_base(of_len, 0x1000, desired_addr, + LMB_NONE); of_start = map_sysmem(addr, of_len); if (of_start == NULL) { puts("Failed using fdt_high value for Device Tree"); goto error; } } else { - addr = lmb_alloc(of_len, 0x1000); + addr = lmb_alloc(of_len, 0x1000, LMB_NONE); of_start = map_sysmem(addr, of_len); } } else { @@ -217,7 +218,7 @@ int boot_relocate_fdt(char **of_flat_tree, ulong *of_size) * for LMB allocation. */ usable = min(start + size, low + mapsize); - addr = lmb_alloc_base(of_len, 0x1000, usable); + addr = lmb_alloc_base(of_len, 0x1000, usable, LMB_NONE); of_start = map_sysmem(addr, of_len); /* Allocation succeeded, use this block. */ if (of_start != NULL) @@ -667,7 +668,7 @@ int image_setup_libfdt(struct bootm_headers *images, void *blob, bool lmb) /* Delete the old LMB reservation */ if (CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(LMB) && lmb) - lmb_free(map_to_sysmem(blob), fdt_totalsize(blob)); + lmb_free(map_to_sysmem(blob), fdt_totalsize(blob), LMB_NONE); ret = fdt_shrink_to_minimum(blob, 0); if (ret < 0) @@ -676,7 +677,7 @@ int image_setup_libfdt(struct bootm_headers *images, void *blob, bool lmb) /* Create a new LMB reservation */ if (CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(LMB) && lmb) - lmb_reserve(map_to_sysmem(blob), of_size); + lmb_reserve(map_to_sysmem(blob), of_size, LMB_NONE); #if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_KEYSTONE) if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_BOARD_SETUP)) diff --git a/cmd/booti.c b/cmd/booti.c index 6018cbacf0..b26ad1c6a4 100644 --- a/cmd/booti.c +++ b/cmd/booti.c @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ static int booti_start(struct bootm_info *bmi) images->os.start = relocated_addr; images->os.end = relocated_addr + image_size; - lmb_reserve(images->ep, le32_to_cpu(image_size)); + lmb_reserve(images->ep, le32_to_cpu(image_size), LMB_NONE); /* * Handle the BOOTM_STATE_FINDOTHER state ourselves as we do not diff --git a/cmd/bootz.c b/cmd/bootz.c index 787203f5bd..99318ff213 100644 --- a/cmd/bootz.c +++ b/cmd/bootz.c @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ static int bootz_start(struct cmd_tbl *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, if (ret != 0) return 1; - lmb_reserve(images->ep, zi_end - zi_start); + lmb_reserve(images->ep, zi_end - zi_start, LMB_NONE); /* * Handle the BOOTM_STATE_FINDOTHER state ourselves as we do not diff --git a/cmd/load.c b/cmd/load.c index 20d802502a..489c13dde0 100644 --- a/cmd/load.c +++ b/cmd/load.c @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ static ulong load_serial(long offset) { void *dst; - ret = lmb_reserve(store_addr, binlen); + ret = lmb_reserve(store_addr, binlen, LMB_NONE); if (ret) { printf("\nCannot overwrite reserved area (%08lx..%08lx)\n", store_addr, store_addr + binlen); @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ static ulong load_serial(long offset) dst = map_sysmem(store_addr, binlen); memcpy(dst, binbuf, binlen); unmap_sysmem(dst); - lmb_free(store_addr, binlen); + lmb_free(store_addr, binlen, LMB_NONE); } if ((store_addr) < start_addr) start_addr = store_addr; diff --git a/drivers/iommu/apple_dart.c b/drivers/iommu/apple_dart.c index 611ac7cd6d..b575cd44d4 100644 --- a/drivers/iommu/apple_dart.c +++ b/drivers/iommu/apple_dart.c @@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ static dma_addr_t apple_dart_map(struct udevice *dev, void *addr, size_t size) off = (phys_addr_t)addr - paddr; psize = ALIGN(size + off, DART_PAGE_SIZE); - dva = lmb_alloc(psize, DART_PAGE_SIZE); + dva = lmb_alloc(psize, DART_PAGE_SIZE, LMB_NONE); idx = dva / DART_PAGE_SIZE; for (i = 0; i < psize / DART_PAGE_SIZE; i++) { @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ static void apple_dart_unmap(struct udevice *dev, dma_addr_t addr, size_t size) (unsigned long)&priv->l2[idx + i]); priv->flush_tlb(priv); - lmb_free(dva, psize); + lmb_free(dva, psize, LMB_NONE); } static struct iommu_ops apple_dart_ops = { @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ static int apple_dart_probe(struct udevice *dev) priv->dvabase = DART_PAGE_SIZE; priv->dvaend = SZ_4G - DART_PAGE_SIZE; - lmb_add(priv->dvabase, priv->dvaend - priv->dvabase); + lmb_add(priv->dvabase, priv->dvaend - priv->dvabase, LMB_NONE); /* Disable translations. */ for (sid = 0; sid < priv->nsid; sid++) diff --git a/drivers/iommu/sandbox_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/sandbox_iommu.c index 5b4a6a8982..505f2c3250 100644 --- a/drivers/iommu/sandbox_iommu.c +++ b/drivers/iommu/sandbox_iommu.c @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ static dma_addr_t sandbox_iommu_map(struct udevice *dev, void *addr, off = virt_to_phys(addr) - paddr; psize = ALIGN(size + off, IOMMU_PAGE_SIZE); - dva = lmb_alloc(psize, IOMMU_PAGE_SIZE); + dva = lmb_alloc(psize, IOMMU_PAGE_SIZE, LMB_NONE); return dva + off; } @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ static void sandbox_iommu_unmap(struct udevice *dev, dma_addr_t addr, psize = size + (addr - dva); psize = ALIGN(psize, IOMMU_PAGE_SIZE); - lmb_free(dva, psize); + lmb_free(dva, psize, LMB_NONE); } static struct iommu_ops sandbox_iommu_ops = { @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ static struct iommu_ops sandbox_iommu_ops = { static int sandbox_iommu_probe(struct udevice *dev) { - lmb_add(0x89abc000, SZ_16K); + lmb_add(0x89abc000, SZ_16K, LMB_NONE); return 0; } diff --git a/fs/fs.c b/fs/fs.c index 4bc28d1dff..4d7af46fc7 100644 --- a/fs/fs.c +++ b/fs/fs.c @@ -551,7 +551,7 @@ static int fs_read_lmb_check(const char *filename, ulong addr, loff_t offset, lmb_dump_all(); - if (lmb_alloc_addr(addr, read_len) == addr) + if (lmb_alloc_addr(addr, read_len, LMB_NONE) == addr) return 0; log_err("** Reading file would overwrite reserved memory **\n"); diff --git a/include/lmb.h b/include/lmb.h index cc4cf9f3c8..c90f167eec 100644 --- a/include/lmb.h +++ b/include/lmb.h @@ -59,21 +59,12 @@ int initr_lmb(void); */ void lmb_add_memory(void); -long lmb_add(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size); -long lmb_reserve(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size); -/** - * lmb_reserve_flags - Reserve one region with a specific flags bitfield. - * - * @base: base address of the memory region - * @size: size of the memory region - * @flags: flags for the memory region - * Return: 0 if OK, > 0 for coalesced region or a negative error code. - */ -long lmb_reserve_flags(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, - enum lmb_flags flags); -phys_addr_t lmb_alloc(phys_size_t size, ulong align); -phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_base(phys_size_t size, ulong align, phys_addr_t max_addr); -phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_addr(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size); +long lmb_add(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, uint flags); +long lmb_reserve(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, uint flags); +phys_addr_t lmb_alloc(phys_size_t size, ulong align, uint flags); +phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_base(phys_size_t size, ulong align, phys_addr_t max_addr, + uint flags); +phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_addr(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, uint flags); phys_size_t lmb_get_free_size(phys_addr_t addr); /** @@ -88,7 +79,7 @@ phys_size_t lmb_get_free_size(phys_addr_t addr); */ int lmb_is_reserved_flags(phys_addr_t addr, int flags); -long lmb_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size); +long lmb_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, uint flags); void lmb_dump_all(void); void lmb_dump_all_force(void); diff --git a/lib/lmb.c b/lib/lmb.c index 5baa5c4c52..ed5988bb1b 100644 --- a/lib/lmb.c +++ b/lib/lmb.c @@ -174,11 +174,11 @@ void arch_lmb_reserve_generic(ulong sp, ulong end, ulong align) if (bank_end > end) bank_end = end - 1; - lmb_reserve_flags(sp, bank_end - sp + 1, LMB_NOOVERWRITE); + lmb_reserve(sp, bank_end - sp + 1, LMB_NOOVERWRITE); if (gd->flags & GD_FLG_SKIP_RELOC) - lmb_reserve_flags((phys_addr_t)(uintptr_t)_start, - gd->mon_len, LMB_NOOVERWRITE); + lmb_reserve((phys_addr_t)(uintptr_t)_start, gd->mon_len, + LMB_NOOVERWRITE); break; } @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ static __maybe_unused int efi_lmb_reserve(void) for (i = 0, map = memmap; i < map_size / sizeof(*map); ++map, ++i) { if (map->type != EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY) { - lmb_reserve_flags(map_to_sysmem((void *)(uintptr_t) + lmb_reserve(map_to_sysmem((void *)(uintptr_t) map->physical_start), map->num_pages * EFI_PAGE_SIZE, map->type == EFI_RESERVED_MEMORY_TYPE @@ -240,7 +240,7 @@ static __maybe_unused void lmb_reserve_common_spl(void) if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SPL_STACK_R_ADDR)) { rsv_start = gd->start_addr_sp - 16384; rsv_size = 16384; - lmb_reserve_flags(rsv_start, rsv_size, LMB_NOOVERWRITE); + lmb_reserve(rsv_start, rsv_size, LMB_NOOVERWRITE); } if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SPL_SEPARATE_BSS)) { @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ static __maybe_unused void lmb_reserve_common_spl(void) rsv_start = (phys_addr_t)(uintptr_t)__bss_start; rsv_size = (phys_addr_t)(uintptr_t)__bss_end - (phys_addr_t)(uintptr_t)__bss_start; - lmb_reserve_flags(rsv_start, rsv_size, LMB_NOOVERWRITE); + lmb_reserve(rsv_start, rsv_size, LMB_NOOVERWRITE); } } @@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ __weak void lmb_add_memory(void) if (rgn_top > ram_top) size -= rgn_top - ram_top; - lmb_add(bd->bi_dram[i].start, size); + lmb_add(bd->bi_dram[i].start, size, LMB_NONE); } } } @@ -496,21 +496,15 @@ static long lmb_add_region_flags(struct alist *lmb_rgn_lst, phys_addr_t base, return 0; } -static long lmb_add_region(struct alist *lmb_rgn_lst, phys_addr_t base, - phys_size_t size) -{ - return lmb_add_region_flags(lmb_rgn_lst, base, size, LMB_NONE); -} - /* This routine may be called with relocation disabled. */ -long lmb_add(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size) +long lmb_add(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, uint flags) { struct alist *lmb_rgn_lst = &lmb_free_mem; - return lmb_add_region(lmb_rgn_lst, base, size); + return lmb_add_region_flags(lmb_rgn_lst, base, size, flags); } -long lmb_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size) +long lmb_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, uint flags) { struct lmb_region *rgn; struct alist *lmb_rgn_lst = &lmb_used_mem; @@ -561,18 +555,13 @@ long lmb_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size) rgn[i].flags); } -long lmb_reserve_flags(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, enum lmb_flags flags) +long lmb_reserve(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, uint flags) { struct alist *lmb_rgn_lst = &lmb_used_mem; return lmb_add_region_flags(lmb_rgn_lst, base, size, flags); } -long lmb_reserve(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size) -{ - return lmb_reserve_flags(base, size, LMB_NONE); -} - static long lmb_overlaps_region(struct alist *lmb_rgn_lst, phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size) { @@ -639,16 +628,17 @@ static phys_addr_t __lmb_alloc_base(phys_size_t size, ulong align, return 0; } -phys_addr_t lmb_alloc(phys_size_t size, ulong align) +phys_addr_t lmb_alloc(phys_size_t size, ulong align, uint flags) { - return lmb_alloc_base(size, align, LMB_ALLOC_ANYWHERE); + return lmb_alloc_base(size, align, LMB_ALLOC_ANYWHERE, flags); } -phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_base(phys_size_t size, ulong align, phys_addr_t max_addr) +phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_base(phys_size_t size, ulong align, phys_addr_t max_addr, + uint flags) { phys_addr_t alloc; - alloc = __lmb_alloc_base(size, align, max_addr, LMB_NONE); + alloc = __lmb_alloc_base(size, align, max_addr, flags); if (alloc == 0) printf("ERROR: Failed to allocate 0x%lx bytes below 0x%lx.\n", @@ -674,7 +664,7 @@ static phys_addr_t __lmb_alloc_addr(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, lmb_memory[rgn].size, base + size - 1, 1)) { /* ok, reserve the memory */ - if (lmb_reserve_flags(base, size, flags) >= 0) + if (lmb_reserve(base, size, flags) >= 0) return base; } } @@ -686,9 +676,9 @@ static phys_addr_t __lmb_alloc_addr(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, * Try to allocate a specific address range: must be in defined memory but not * reserved */ -phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_addr(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size) +phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_addr(phys_addr_t base, phys_size_t size, uint flags) { - return __lmb_alloc_addr(base, size, LMB_NONE); + return __lmb_alloc_addr(base, size, flags); } /* Return number of bytes from a given address that are free */ diff --git a/test/lib/lmb.c b/test/lib/lmb.c index a3a7ad904c..3f99156cf3 100644 --- a/test/lib/lmb.c +++ b/test/lib/lmb.c @@ -77,11 +77,11 @@ static int test_multi_alloc(struct unit_test_state *uts, const phys_addr_t ram, ut_assert(alloc_64k_end <= ram_end - 8); if (ram0_size) { - ret = lmb_add(ram0, ram0_size); + ret = lmb_add(ram0, ram0_size, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); } - ret = lmb_add(ram, ram_size); + ret = lmb_add(ram, ram_size, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); if (ram0_size) { @@ -97,67 +97,67 @@ static int test_multi_alloc(struct unit_test_state *uts, const phys_addr_t ram, } /* reserve 64KiB somewhere */ - ret = lmb_reserve(alloc_64k_addr, 0x10000); + ret = lmb_reserve(alloc_64k_addr, 0x10000, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, 0, 0, 1, alloc_64k_addr, 0x10000, 0, 0, 0, 0); /* allocate somewhere, should be at the end of RAM */ - a = lmb_alloc(4, 1); + a = lmb_alloc(4, 1, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(a, ram_end - 4); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, 0, 0, 2, alloc_64k_addr, 0x10000, ram_end - 4, 4, 0, 0); /* alloc below end of reserved region -> below reserved region */ - b = lmb_alloc_base(4, 1, alloc_64k_end); + b = lmb_alloc_base(4, 1, alloc_64k_end, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(b, alloc_64k_addr - 4); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, 0, 0, 2, alloc_64k_addr - 4, 0x10000 + 4, ram_end - 4, 4, 0, 0); /* 2nd time */ - c = lmb_alloc(4, 1); + c = lmb_alloc(4, 1, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(c, ram_end - 8); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, 0, 0, 2, alloc_64k_addr - 4, 0x10000 + 4, ram_end - 8, 8, 0, 0); - d = lmb_alloc_base(4, 1, alloc_64k_end); + d = lmb_alloc_base(4, 1, alloc_64k_end, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(d, alloc_64k_addr - 8); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, 0, 0, 2, alloc_64k_addr - 8, 0x10000 + 8, ram_end - 8, 8, 0, 0); - ret = lmb_free(a, 4); + ret = lmb_free(a, 4, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, 0, 0, 2, alloc_64k_addr - 8, 0x10000 + 8, ram_end - 8, 4, 0, 0); /* allocate again to ensure we get the same address */ - a2 = lmb_alloc(4, 1); + a2 = lmb_alloc(4, 1, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(a, a2); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, 0, 0, 2, alloc_64k_addr - 8, 0x10000 + 8, ram_end - 8, 8, 0, 0); - ret = lmb_free(a2, 4); + ret = lmb_free(a2, 4, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, 0, 0, 2, alloc_64k_addr - 8, 0x10000 + 8, ram_end - 8, 4, 0, 0); - ret = lmb_free(b, 4); + ret = lmb_free(b, 4, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, 0, 0, 3, alloc_64k_addr - 8, 4, alloc_64k_addr, 0x10000, ram_end - 8, 4); /* allocate again to ensure we get the same address */ - b2 = lmb_alloc_base(4, 1, alloc_64k_end); + b2 = lmb_alloc_base(4, 1, alloc_64k_end, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(b, b2); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, 0, 0, 2, alloc_64k_addr - 8, 0x10000 + 8, ram_end - 8, 4, 0, 0); - ret = lmb_free(b2, 4); + ret = lmb_free(b2, 4, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, 0, 0, 3, alloc_64k_addr - 8, 4, alloc_64k_addr, 0x10000, ram_end - 8, 4); - ret = lmb_free(c, 4); + ret = lmb_free(c, 4, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, 0, 0, 2, alloc_64k_addr - 8, 4, alloc_64k_addr, 0x10000, 0, 0); - ret = lmb_free(d, 4); + ret = lmb_free(d, 4, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, 0, 0, 1, alloc_64k_addr, 0x10000, 0, 0, 0, 0); @@ -234,35 +234,35 @@ static int test_bigblock(struct unit_test_state *uts, const phys_addr_t ram) /* check for overflow */ ut_assert(ram_end == 0 || ram_end > ram); - ret = lmb_add(ram, ram_size); + ret = lmb_add(ram, ram_size, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); /* reserve 64KiB in the middle of RAM */ - ret = lmb_reserve(alloc_64k_addr, 0x10000); + ret = lmb_reserve(alloc_64k_addr, 0x10000, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, alloc_64k_addr, 0x10000, 0, 0, 0, 0); /* allocate a big block, should be below reserved */ - a = lmb_alloc(big_block_size, 1); + a = lmb_alloc(big_block_size, 1, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(a, ram); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, a, big_block_size + 0x10000, 0, 0, 0, 0); /* allocate 2nd big block */ /* This should fail, printing an error */ - b = lmb_alloc(big_block_size, 1); + b = lmb_alloc(big_block_size, 1, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(b, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, a, big_block_size + 0x10000, 0, 0, 0, 0); - ret = lmb_free(a, big_block_size); + ret = lmb_free(a, big_block_size, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, alloc_64k_addr, 0x10000, 0, 0, 0, 0); /* allocate too big block */ /* This should fail, printing an error */ - a = lmb_alloc(ram_size, 1); + a = lmb_alloc(ram_size, 1, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(a, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, alloc_64k_addr, 0x10000, 0, 0, 0, 0); @@ -298,17 +298,17 @@ static int test_noreserved(struct unit_test_state *uts, const phys_addr_t ram, /* check for overflow */ ut_assert(ram_end == 0 || ram_end > ram); - ret = lmb_add(ram, ram_size); + ret = lmb_add(ram, ram_size, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0); /* allocate a block */ - a = lmb_alloc(alloc_size, align); + a = lmb_alloc(alloc_size, align, LMB_NONE); ut_assert(a != 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, ram + ram_size - alloc_size_aligned, alloc_size, 0, 0, 0, 0); /* allocate another block */ - b = lmb_alloc(alloc_size, align); + b = lmb_alloc(alloc_size, align, LMB_NONE); ut_assert(b != 0); if (alloc_size == alloc_size_aligned) { ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, ram + ram_size - @@ -320,21 +320,21 @@ static int test_noreserved(struct unit_test_state *uts, const phys_addr_t ram, - alloc_size_aligned, alloc_size, 0, 0); } /* and free them */ - ret = lmb_free(b, alloc_size); + ret = lmb_free(b, alloc_size, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, ram + ram_size - alloc_size_aligned, alloc_size, 0, 0, 0, 0); - ret = lmb_free(a, alloc_size); + ret = lmb_free(a, alloc_size, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0); /* allocate a block with base*/ - b = lmb_alloc_base(alloc_size, align, ram_end); + b = lmb_alloc_base(alloc_size, align, ram_end, LMB_NONE); ut_assert(a == b); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, ram + ram_size - alloc_size_aligned, alloc_size, 0, 0, 0, 0); /* and free it */ - ret = lmb_free(b, alloc_size); + ret = lmb_free(b, alloc_size, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0); @@ -381,28 +381,28 @@ static int lib_test_lmb_at_0(struct unit_test_state *uts) long ret; phys_addr_t a, b; - ret = lmb_add(ram, ram_size); + ret = lmb_add(ram, ram_size, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); /* allocate nearly everything */ - a = lmb_alloc(ram_size - 4, 1); + a = lmb_alloc(ram_size - 4, 1, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(a, ram + 4); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, a, ram_size - 4, 0, 0, 0, 0); /* allocate the rest */ /* This should fail as the allocated address would be 0 */ - b = lmb_alloc(4, 1); + b = lmb_alloc(4, 1, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(b, 0); /* check that this was an error by checking lmb */ ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, a, ram_size - 4, 0, 0, 0, 0); /* check that this was an error by freeing b */ - ret = lmb_free(b, 4); + ret = lmb_free(b, 4, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, -1); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, a, ram_size - 4, 0, 0, 0, 0); - ret = lmb_free(a, ram_size - 4); + ret = lmb_free(a, ram_size - 4, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0); @@ -417,37 +417,37 @@ static int lib_test_lmb_overlapping_reserve(struct unit_test_state *uts) const phys_size_t ram_size = 0x20000000; long ret; - ret = lmb_add(ram, ram_size); + ret = lmb_add(ram, ram_size, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); - ret = lmb_reserve(0x40010000, 0x10000); + ret = lmb_reserve(0x40010000, 0x10000, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, 0x40010000, 0x10000, 0, 0, 0, 0); /* allocate overlapping region should fail */ - ret = lmb_reserve(0x40011000, 0x10000); + ret = lmb_reserve(0x40011000, 0x10000, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, -1); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, 0x40010000, 0x10000, 0, 0, 0, 0); /* allocate 3nd region */ - ret = lmb_reserve(0x40030000, 0x10000); + ret = lmb_reserve(0x40030000, 0x10000, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 2, 0x40010000, 0x10000, 0x40030000, 0x10000, 0, 0); /* allocate 2nd region , This should coalesced all region into one */ - ret = lmb_reserve(0x40020000, 0x10000); + ret = lmb_reserve(0x40020000, 0x10000, LMB_NONE); ut_assert(ret >= 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, 0x40010000, 0x30000, 0, 0, 0, 0); /* allocate 2nd region, which should be added as first region */ - ret = lmb_reserve(0x40000000, 0x8000); + ret = lmb_reserve(0x40000000, 0x8000, LMB_NONE); ut_assert(ret >= 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 2, 0x40000000, 0x8000, 0x40010000, 0x30000, 0, 0); /* allocate 3rd region, coalesce with first and overlap with second */ - ret = lmb_reserve(0x40008000, 0x10000); + ret = lmb_reserve(0x40008000, 0x10000, LMB_NONE); ut_assert(ret >= 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, 0x40000000, 0x40000, 0, 0, 0, 0); @@ -472,95 +472,95 @@ static int test_alloc_addr(struct unit_test_state *uts, const phys_addr_t ram) /* check for overflow */ ut_assert(ram_end == 0 || ram_end > ram); - ret = lmb_add(ram, ram_size); + ret = lmb_add(ram, ram_size, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); /* reserve 3 blocks */ - ret = lmb_reserve(alloc_addr_a, 0x10000); + ret = lmb_reserve(alloc_addr_a, 0x10000, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); - ret = lmb_reserve(alloc_addr_b, 0x10000); + ret = lmb_reserve(alloc_addr_b, 0x10000, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); - ret = lmb_reserve(alloc_addr_c, 0x10000); + ret = lmb_reserve(alloc_addr_c, 0x10000, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 3, alloc_addr_a, 0x10000, alloc_addr_b, 0x10000, alloc_addr_c, 0x10000); /* allocate blocks */ - a = lmb_alloc_addr(ram, alloc_addr_a - ram); + a = lmb_alloc_addr(ram, alloc_addr_a - ram, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(a, ram); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 3, ram, 0x8010000, alloc_addr_b, 0x10000, alloc_addr_c, 0x10000); b = lmb_alloc_addr(alloc_addr_a + 0x10000, - alloc_addr_b - alloc_addr_a - 0x10000); + alloc_addr_b - alloc_addr_a - 0x10000, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(b, alloc_addr_a + 0x10000); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 2, ram, 0x10010000, alloc_addr_c, 0x10000, 0, 0); c = lmb_alloc_addr(alloc_addr_b + 0x10000, - alloc_addr_c - alloc_addr_b - 0x10000); + alloc_addr_c - alloc_addr_b - 0x10000, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(c, alloc_addr_b + 0x10000); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, ram, 0x18010000, 0, 0, 0, 0); d = lmb_alloc_addr(alloc_addr_c + 0x10000, - ram_end - alloc_addr_c - 0x10000); + ram_end - alloc_addr_c - 0x10000, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(d, alloc_addr_c + 0x10000); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, ram, ram_size, 0, 0, 0, 0); /* allocating anything else should fail */ - e = lmb_alloc(1, 1); + e = lmb_alloc(1, 1, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(e, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, ram, ram_size, 0, 0, 0, 0); - ret = lmb_free(d, ram_end - alloc_addr_c - 0x10000); + ret = lmb_free(d, ram_end - alloc_addr_c - 0x10000, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); /* allocate at 3 points in free range */ - d = lmb_alloc_addr(ram_end - 4, 4); + d = lmb_alloc_addr(ram_end - 4, 4, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(d, ram_end - 4); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 2, ram, 0x18010000, d, 4, 0, 0); - ret = lmb_free(d, 4); + ret = lmb_free(d, 4, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, ram, 0x18010000, 0, 0, 0, 0); - d = lmb_alloc_addr(ram_end - 128, 4); + d = lmb_alloc_addr(ram_end - 128, 4, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(d, ram_end - 128); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 2, ram, 0x18010000, d, 4, 0, 0); - ret = lmb_free(d, 4); + ret = lmb_free(d, 4, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, ram, 0x18010000, 0, 0, 0, 0); - d = lmb_alloc_addr(alloc_addr_c + 0x10000, 4); + d = lmb_alloc_addr(alloc_addr_c + 0x10000, 4, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(d, alloc_addr_c + 0x10000); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, ram, 0x18010004, 0, 0, 0, 0); - ret = lmb_free(d, 4); + ret = lmb_free(d, 4, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, ram, 0x18010000, 0, 0, 0, 0); /* allocate at the bottom */ - ret = lmb_free(a, alloc_addr_a - ram); + ret = lmb_free(a, alloc_addr_a - ram, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, ram + 0x8000000, 0x10010000, 0, 0, 0, 0); - d = lmb_alloc_addr(ram, 4); + d = lmb_alloc_addr(ram, 4, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(d, ram); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 2, d, 4, ram + 0x8000000, 0x10010000, 0, 0); /* check that allocating outside memory fails */ if (ram_end != 0) { - ret = lmb_alloc_addr(ram_end, 1); + ret = lmb_alloc_addr(ram_end, 1, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); } if (ram != 0) { - ret = lmb_alloc_addr(ram - 1, 1); + ret = lmb_alloc_addr(ram - 1, 1, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); } @@ -596,15 +596,15 @@ static int test_get_unreserved_size(struct unit_test_state *uts, /* check for overflow */ ut_assert(ram_end == 0 || ram_end > ram); - ret = lmb_add(ram, ram_size); + ret = lmb_add(ram, ram_size, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); /* reserve 3 blocks */ - ret = lmb_reserve(alloc_addr_a, 0x10000); + ret = lmb_reserve(alloc_addr_a, 0x10000, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); - ret = lmb_reserve(alloc_addr_b, 0x10000); + ret = lmb_reserve(alloc_addr_b, 0x10000, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); - ret = lmb_reserve(alloc_addr_c, 0x10000); + ret = lmb_reserve(alloc_addr_c, 0x10000, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 3, alloc_addr_a, 0x10000, alloc_addr_b, 0x10000, alloc_addr_c, 0x10000); @@ -654,23 +654,23 @@ static int lib_test_lmb_flags(struct unit_test_state *uts) const phys_size_t ram_size = 0x20000000; long ret; - ret = lmb_add(ram, ram_size); + ret = lmb_add(ram, ram_size, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); /* reserve, same flag */ - ret = lmb_reserve_flags(0x40010000, 0x10000, LMB_NOMAP); + ret = lmb_reserve(0x40010000, 0x10000, LMB_NOMAP); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, 0x40010000, 0x10000, 0, 0, 0, 0); /* reserve again, same flag */ - ret = lmb_reserve_flags(0x40010000, 0x10000, LMB_NOMAP); + ret = lmb_reserve(0x40010000, 0x10000, LMB_NOMAP); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, 0x40010000, 0x10000, 0, 0, 0, 0); /* reserve again, new flag */ - ret = lmb_reserve_flags(0x40010000, 0x10000, LMB_NONE); + ret = lmb_reserve(0x40010000, 0x10000, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, -1); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, 0x40010000, 0x10000, 0, 0, 0, 0); @@ -678,20 +678,20 @@ static int lib_test_lmb_flags(struct unit_test_state *uts) ut_asserteq(lmb_is_nomap(&lmb.reserved.region[0]), 1); /* merge after */ - ret = lmb_reserve_flags(0x40020000, 0x10000, LMB_NOMAP); + ret = lmb_reserve(0x40020000, 0x10000, LMB_NOMAP); ut_asserteq(ret, 1); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, 0x40010000, 0x20000, 0, 0, 0, 0); /* merge before */ - ret = lmb_reserve_flags(0x40000000, 0x10000, LMB_NOMAP); + ret = lmb_reserve(0x40000000, 0x10000, LMB_NOMAP); ut_asserteq(ret, 1); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 1, 0x40000000, 0x30000, 0, 0, 0, 0); ut_asserteq(lmb_is_nomap(&lmb.reserved.region[0]), 1); - ret = lmb_reserve_flags(0x40030000, 0x10000, LMB_NONE); + ret = lmb_reserve(0x40030000, 0x10000, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 2, 0x40000000, 0x30000, 0x40030000, 0x10000, 0, 0); @@ -700,7 +700,7 @@ static int lib_test_lmb_flags(struct unit_test_state *uts) ut_asserteq(lmb_is_nomap(&lmb.reserved.region[1]), 0); /* test that old API use LMB_NONE */ - ret = lmb_reserve(0x40040000, 0x10000); + ret = lmb_reserve(0x40040000, 0x10000, LMB_NONE); ut_asserteq(ret, 1); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 2, 0x40000000, 0x30000, 0x40030000, 0x20000, 0, 0); @@ -708,18 +708,18 @@ static int lib_test_lmb_flags(struct unit_test_state *uts) ut_asserteq(lmb_is_nomap(&lmb.reserved.region[0]), 1); ut_asserteq(lmb_is_nomap(&lmb.reserved.region[1]), 0); - ret = lmb_reserve_flags(0x40070000, 0x10000, LMB_NOMAP); + ret = lmb_reserve(0x40070000, 0x10000, LMB_NOMAP); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 3, 0x40000000, 0x30000, 0x40030000, 0x20000, 0x40070000, 0x10000); - ret = lmb_reserve_flags(0x40050000, 0x10000, LMB_NOMAP); + ret = lmb_reserve(0x40050000, 0x10000, LMB_NOMAP); ut_asserteq(ret, 0); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 4, 0x40000000, 0x30000, 0x40030000, 0x20000, 0x40050000, 0x10000); /* merge with 2 adjacent regions */ - ret = lmb_reserve_flags(0x40060000, 0x10000, LMB_NOMAP); + ret = lmb_reserve(0x40060000, 0x10000, LMB_NOMAP); ut_asserteq(ret, 2); ASSERT_LMB(&lmb, ram, ram_size, 3, 0x40000000, 0x30000, 0x40030000, 0x20000, 0x40050000, 0x30000);
Add a flags parameter to the LMB API functions. The parameter can then be used to pass any other type of reservations or allocations needed by the callers. These will be used in a subsequent set of changes for allocation requests coming from the EFI subsystem. Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> --- Changes since rfc: New patch arch/arm/mach-apple/board.c | 17 ++-- arch/arm/mach-snapdragon/board.c | 2 +- arch/arm/mach-stm32mp/dram_init.c | 4 +- arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/mp.c | 2 +- arch/powerpc/lib/bootm.c | 2 +- board/xilinx/common/board.c | 4 +- boot/bootm.c | 5 +- boot/image-board.c | 15 ++- boot/image-fdt.c | 15 +-- cmd/booti.c | 2 +- cmd/bootz.c | 2 +- cmd/load.c | 4 +- drivers/iommu/apple_dart.c | 6 +- drivers/iommu/sandbox_iommu.c | 6 +- fs/fs.c | 2 +- include/lmb.h | 23 ++--- lib/lmb.c | 48 ++++------ test/lib/lmb.c | 150 +++++++++++++++--------------- 18 files changed, 150 insertions(+), 159 deletions(-)