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

[york sun]

On 10/17/2016 02:01 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
> 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 :).

OK, then.

York