[PATCH v3 10/15] lmb: allow for boards to specify memory map

[Simon Glass]

Hi Sughosh,

On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 at 03:31, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu at linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 at 21:21, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Sughosh,
> >
> > On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 at 04:56, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu at linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Some architectures have special or unique aspects which need
> > > consideration when adding memory ranges to the list of available
> > > memory map. Enable this config in such scenarios which allow
> > > architectures and boards to define their own memory map.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu at linaro.org>
> > > ---
> > > Changes since V2: None
> > >
> > >  include/lmb.h |  2 ++
> > >  lib/Kconfig   | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> > >  lib/lmb.c     |  3 +++
> > >  3 files changed, 23 insertions(+)
> >
> > Since this is in addition to the existing LMB (which protects U-Boot's
> > memory-region) I suggest emitting an event in initr_lmb() to add
> > things to the LMB.
>
> But I thought this approach had been agreed upon by you. I had shared
> a branch with you earlier [1] which had this commit for your feedback,
> and you got back saying that this approach is fine with you [2].

If this is just for x86, then sure we can sort this out after this
series. The x86 thing is strange as there are sometimes several tables
involved.


>
> -sughosh
>
> [1] - https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2024-August/562690.html
> [2] - https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2024-August/563498.html
>
> >
> > But for SPL, this doesn't work, since we are trying not to add events
> > for SPL. Perhaps I will discover this further on in this series, but
> > which boards need to do something special in SPL?
> >

Regards,
Simon