Hi Sughosh,
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 02:42, 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:
Almost all of the current definitions of arch_lmb_reserve() are doing the same thing. The only exception in a couple of cases is the alignment parameter requirement. Have a generic weak implementation of this function, keeping the highest value of alignment that is being used(16K).
Also, instead of using the current value of stack pointer for starting the reserved region, have a fixed value, considering the stack size config value.
Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu sughosh.ganu@linaro.org
Changes since rfc: None
arch/arc/lib/cache.c | 14 -------------- arch/arm/lib/stack.c | 14 -------------- arch/m68k/lib/bootm.c | 17 ----------------- arch/microblaze/lib/bootm.c | 14 -------------- arch/mips/lib/bootm.c | 15 --------------- arch/nios2/lib/bootm.c | 13 ------------- arch/powerpc/lib/bootm.c | 13 +++---------- arch/riscv/lib/bootm.c | 13 ------------- arch/sh/lib/bootm.c | 13 ------------- arch/x86/lib/bootm.c | 18 ------------------ arch/xtensa/lib/bootm.c | 13 ------------- lib/lmb.c | 6 +++++- 12 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 155 deletions(-)
How about not having a weak function? I have to wonder whether powerpc really needs to be different? If it does, I suppose we could use an event to deal with powerpc.
Again, I have the same question about weak functions. It does not seem to be a universal policy.
Perhaps the powerpc maintainer can help figure this out, with answers to the questions I posed?
Regards, SImon