[U-Boot] [PATCH 5/6] spl: support using full malloc with SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN

[Simon Goldschmidt]

Hi Simon,

you were replying to v1 where v2 has already been sent. However, this 
patch hasn't changed, so I'm commenting here.

Am 19.03.2019 um 02:24 schrieb Simon Glass:
> Hi Simon,
> 
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 05:35, Simon Goldschmidt
> <simon.k.r.goldschmidt at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Some platforms (like socfpga A10) need a big hep before SDRAM is available
>> (e.g. because FAT is used). For such platforms, simple_malloc is often not
>> a good option as it does not support freeing memory. These platforms often
>> use the non-Kconfig defines CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_START (and its SIZE).
>>
>> This patch allows enabling CONFIG_SPL_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN while leaving
>> CONFIG_SPL_SYS_MALLOC_SIMPLE disabled. In this case, the full malloc heap
>> is made available as early as the simple_malloc heap would be normally.
>>
>> This way, platforms can drop the non-Kconfig options to set up the full
>> heap and rely on the same automatically calculated heap allocation used
>> for simple heap.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Simon Goldschmidt <simon.k.r.goldschmidt at gmail.com>
>> ---
>>
>>   common/spl/spl.c | 5 +++++
>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/common/spl/spl.c b/common/spl/spl.c
>> index 88d4b8a9bf..b89340eb27 100644
>> --- a/common/spl/spl.c
>> +++ b/common/spl/spl.c
>> @@ -383,8 +383,13 @@ static int spl_common_init(bool setup_malloc)
>>   #ifdef CONFIG_MALLOC_F_ADDR
>>                  gd->malloc_base = CONFIG_MALLOC_F_ADDR;
>>   #endif
>> +#if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(SYS_MALLOC_SIMPLE)
> 
> Can we use if() instead of #if here?

Yes, that should work. Noted for v3.

> 
>>                  gd->malloc_limit = CONFIG_VAL(SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN);
>>                  gd->malloc_ptr = 0;
>> +#else
>> +               mem_malloc_init(gd->malloc_base, CONFIG_VAL(SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN));
>> +               gd->flags |= GD_FLG_FULL_MALLOC_INIT;
>> +#endif
>>          }
>>   #endif
>>          ret = bootstage_init(true);
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>>
> 
> Also I feel some updates should be made to the README, or perhaps Kconfig help.

Yes, you're right. Honestly, I didn't want to go through all the 
documentation mess unless getting at least some slightly positive 
feedback to this. Searching the readme files and Kconfig help to get 
them consistent is probably more work than coding these patches :-)

Regards,
Simon