[PATCH] Revert "arm: bootm: Disable LMB reservation for command line and board info on arm64"

[Marek Vasut]

On 8/2/21 1:36 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 02.08.21 12:48, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 8/2/21 11:37 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 02.08.21 02:54, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>> On 7/29/21 6:58 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>>> so when did rcar3 introduce something there that shouldn't be
>>>>>>> reserved?  And you had phrased this to me on IRC as about reserving
>>>>>>> spot
>>>>>>> for ATAGS, and that not being needed of course on arm64.  But that's
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> what's going on.  Perhaps the answer is that rcar3 needs to
>>>>>>> introduce a
>>>>>>> board_lmb_reserve to free the normal arch one and provide whatever
>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>> narrow scope it needs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Based on the commit message 2359fa7a878 ("arm: bootm: Disable LMB
>>>>>> reservation for command line and board info on arm64") , this is
>>>>>> about ATAGS
>>>>>> and we really don't need to reserve those on arm64.
>>>>>
>>>>> Commit 2359fa7a878 disables the entire arch_lmb_reserve function on
>>>>> aarch64, yes.  I assumed when we had talked that it was a small area
>>>>> being set aside and perhaps mis-recalled that ATAGS tended to live at
>>>>> DDR_BASE + 0x800 or so.
>>>>
>>>> That arch_lmb_reserve() is responsible for reserving architecture
>>>> specific memory. On arm32 it is ATAGS, on arm64 it is nothing as far as
>>>> I can tell (and see below regarding the TLB).
>>>>
>>>>> This reservation is not at that spot, and a lot
>>>>> more than that.
>>>>
>>>> Can you please elaborate on this "lot more" part ? Because as much as I
>>>> studied the reservation code, the "lot more" was ATAGS on arm32 and
>>>> nothing on arm64.
>>>
>>> See my commit log.
>>
>> This is not particularly useful answer, considering the commit log says:
>> "lot of crucial things", "Possibly more", "likely also on other boards"
>> and other opaque statements. But really, the problem so far happens on
>> one K3 board.
> 
> "Such things are the page table (tlb_addr),
> relocated U-Boot and the active stack."

Please read the rest of my answer, I don't believe the TLB should be 
reserved at all. DTTO for the stack. If you think otherwise, please 
explain why.