[PATCH 24/40] lmb: add a common implementation of arch_lmb_reserve()

[Sughosh Ganu]

On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 at 05:02, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Sughosh,
>
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 00:04, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu at linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Almost all of the current definitions of arch_lmb_reserve() are doing
> > the same thing. The only exception in a couple of cases is the
> > alignment parameter requirement. Have a generic weak implementation of
> > this function, keeping the highest value of alignment that is being
> > used(16K).
> >
> > Also, instead of using the current value of stack pointer for starting
> > the reserved region, have a fixed value, considering the stack size
> > config value.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu at linaro.org>
> > ---
> > Changes since rfc: None
> >
> >  arch/arc/lib/cache.c        | 14 --------------
> >  arch/arm/lib/stack.c        | 14 --------------
> >  arch/m68k/lib/bootm.c       | 17 -----------------
> >  arch/microblaze/lib/bootm.c | 14 --------------
> >  arch/mips/lib/bootm.c       | 15 ---------------
> >  arch/nios2/lib/bootm.c      | 13 -------------
> >  arch/powerpc/lib/bootm.c    | 13 +++----------
> >  arch/riscv/lib/bootm.c      | 13 -------------
> >  arch/sh/lib/bootm.c         | 13 -------------
> >  arch/x86/lib/bootm.c        | 18 ------------------
> >  arch/xtensa/lib/bootm.c     | 13 -------------
> >  lib/lmb.c                   |  6 +++++-
> >  12 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 155 deletions(-)
>
> How about not having a weak function? I have to wonder whether powerpc
> really needs to be different? If it does, I suppose we could use an
> event to deal with powerpc.

Again, I have the same question about weak functions. It does not seem
to be a universal policy.

-sughosh

>
> Regards,
> Simon