[U-Boot] [PATCH v5 5/7] armv8: ls2080a: Declare spin tables as reserved for efi loader

[Alexander Graf]

On 15.10.16 18:57, york sun wrote:
> On 10/15/2016 03:03 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> The efi loader code has its own memory map, so it needs to be aware where
>> the spin tables are located, to ensure that no code writes into those
>> regions.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <agraf at suse.de>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c | 6 ++++++
>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c
>> index 1a8321b..facfcca 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/fdt.c
>> @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
>>   */
>>
>>  #include <common.h>
>> +#include <efi_loader.h>
>>  #include <libfdt.h>
>>  #include <fdt_support.h>
>>  #include <phy.h>
>> @@ -105,6 +106,11 @@ remove_psci_node:
>>
>>  	fdt_add_mem_rsv(blob, (uintptr_t)&secondary_boot_code,
>>  			*boot_code_size);
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_EFI_LOADER
>> +	efi_add_memory_map((uintptr_t)&secondary_boot_code,
>> +			   ALIGN(*boot_code_size, EFI_PAGE_SIZE) >> EFI_PAGE_SHIFT,
>> +			   EFI_RESERVED_MEMORY_TYPE, false);
>> +#endif
>>  }
>>  #endif
>>
>>
> Alex,
> 
> Does it make more sense to use __spin_table instead of 
> secondary_boot_code (even they happen to have the same value here)?

I'm reasonably indifferent, but I wanted to make sure we're using the
same values as the fdt_add_mem_rsv() line above :).


Alex