Hi Ilias,
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 at 04:38, Ilias Apalodimas ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Simon,
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 at 04:50, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
The call to malloc() is a bit strange. The naming of the arguments suggests that an address is passed, but in fact it is a pointer, at least in the board_init_r() function and SPL equivalent.
Update it to work as described. Add a function comment as well.
Note that this does adjustment does not extend into the malloc() implementation itself, apart from changing mem_malloc_init(), since there are lots of casts and pointers and integers are used interchangeably.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
common/board_r.c | 3 +-- common/dlmalloc.c | 8 +++++--- common/spl/spl.c | 4 +--- include/malloc.h | 8 ++++++++ 4 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/common/board_r.c b/common/board_r.c index 4faaa202421..fbb10fea494 100644 --- a/common/board_r.c +++ b/common/board_r.c @@ -203,8 +203,7 @@ static int initr_malloc(void) */ start = gd->relocaddr - TOTAL_MALLOC_LEN; gd_set_malloc_start(start);
mem_malloc_init((ulong)map_sysmem(start, TOTAL_MALLOC_LEN),TOTAL_MALLOC_LEN);
mem_malloc_init(start, TOTAL_MALLOC_LEN); return 0;}
diff --git a/common/dlmalloc.c b/common/dlmalloc.c index 1ac7ce3f43c..cc4d3a0a028 100644 --- a/common/dlmalloc.c +++ b/common/dlmalloc.c @@ -16,6 +16,8 @@ #include <asm/global_data.h>
#include <malloc.h> +#include <mapmem.h> +#include <string.h> #include <asm/io.h> #include <valgrind/memcheck.h>
@@ -598,9 +600,9 @@ void *sbrk(ptrdiff_t increment)
void mem_malloc_init(ulong start, ulong size) {
mem_malloc_start = start;mem_malloc_end = start + size;mem_malloc_brk = start;
mem_malloc_start = (ulong)map_sysmem(start, size);mem_malloc_end = mem_malloc_start + size;mem_malloc_brk = mem_malloc_start;#ifdef CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_DEFAULT_TO_INIT malloc_init(); diff --git a/common/spl/spl.c b/common/spl/spl.c index c13b2b8f714..fc8b38862e8 100644 --- a/common/spl/spl.c +++ b/common/spl/spl.c @@ -679,9 +679,7 @@ void board_init_r(gd_t *dummy1, ulong dummy2) spl_set_bd();
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SPL_SYS_MALLOC)) {
mem_malloc_init((ulong)map_sysmem(SPL_SYS_MALLOC_START,SPL_SYS_MALLOC_SIZE),SPL_SYS_MALLOC_SIZE);
mem_malloc_init(SPL_SYS_MALLOC_START, SPL_SYS_MALLOC_SIZE); gd->flags |= GD_FLG_FULL_MALLOC_INIT; } if (!(gd->flags & GD_FLG_SPL_INIT)) {diff --git a/include/malloc.h b/include/malloc.h index 07d3e90a855..9e0be482416 100644 --- a/include/malloc.h +++ b/include/malloc.h @@ -981,6 +981,14 @@ extern ulong mem_malloc_start; extern ulong mem_malloc_end; extern ulong mem_malloc_brk;
+/**
- mem_malloc_init() - Set up the malloc() pool
- Sets the region of memory to be used for all future calls to malloc(), etc.
- @start: Start address
- @size: Size in bytes
- */
void mem_malloc_init(ulong start, ulong size);
#ifdef __cplusplus
2.43.0
This looks ok as long as map_sysmem() is a 1:1 mapping for non-sandbox archs. NXP seems to be calling these with an address already.
Yes it is
I guess since we only define an alternative map_sysmem() for sandbox this is ok
Reviewed-by: Ilias Apalodimas ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org
Thanks.
Regards, Simon