[PATCH v3 00/27] Make LMB memory map global and persistent

[Sughosh Ganu]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 at 04:17, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 04:28:12PM +0530, Sughosh Ganu wrote:
>
> > This is a follow-up from an earlier RFC series [1] for making the LMB
> > and EFI memory allocations work together. This is a non-rfc version
> > with only the LMB part of the patches, for making the LMB memory map
> > global and persistent.
> >
> > This is part one of a set of patches which aim to have the LMB and EFI
> > memory allocations work together. This requires making the LMB memory
> > map global and persistent, instead of having local, caller specific
> > maps. This is being done keeping in mind the usage of LMB memory by
> > platforms where the same memory region can be used to load multiple
> > different images. What is not allowed is to overwrite memory that has
> > been allocated by the other module, currently the EFI memory
> > module. This is being achieved by introducing a new flag,
> > LMB_NOOVERWRITE, which represents memory which cannot be re-requested
> > once allocated.
> >
> > The data structures (alloced lists) required for maintaining the LMB
> > map are initialised during board init. The LMB module is enabled by
> > default for the main U-Boot image, while it needs to be enabled for
> > SPL. This version also uses a stack implementation, as suggested by
> > Simon Glass to temporarily store the lmb structure instance which is
> > used during normal operation when running lmb tests. This does away
> > with the need to run the lmb tests separately.
> >
> > The tests have been tweaked where needed because of these changes.
> >
> > The second part of the patches, to be sent subsequently, would work on
> > having the EFI allocations work with the LMB API's.
>
> This generally feels like the right direction, but for v4 can you please
> look at the assorted checkpatch.pl warnings? Don't worry so much about
> trying to use IS_ENABLED and so forth if it doesn't enhance the
> readability but there are "func (....)" and some other issues that
> should be fixed. Thanks!

Sure, will fix these issues. Will wait for a few days to see if there
are any other comments on the patches. Thanks.

-sughosh