[PATCH v3 2/6] lmb: replace the lmb_alloc() and lmb_alloc_base() API's

[Ilias Apalodimas]

[...]

> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This tends to blow up in random ways. See
> > > > > commit 67be24906fe. TL;DR 0 is a valid address in some systems.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I see your point. I think the calling function will have to be
> > > > re-written such that the env variables get stored only when the API
> > > > returns successfully. Then at least the platform will not have an env
> > > > variable with some junk value.
> > >
> > > Thinking about this a bit, I think in these two instances, returning a
> > > value of 0 might not be an issue if the DRAM memory does not start at
> > > 0x0. Don't get me wrong, what you are suggesting is definitely
> > > correct. I am only thinking about increasing code size on these
> > > platforms if 0x0 is not a valid address, and moreover since the
> > > platforms were already setting 0x0 in case of an error.
> >
> > what kind of code size increase are we talking about?
>
> Let me check the actual size impact with the changes and get back to you.
>
> > It's returning
> > na int instead of a physical address so that should be close to zero?
>
> Sorry, I do not understand what you are suggesting, but even the above
> static function is returning a phys_addr_t value, which is 0 in case
> of an error. And I have kept this to mimic the existing behaviour.
> Thanks.

I am saying that changing the return type from phys_addr_t to an int
should have a negligible size impact.

Thanks
/Ilias
>
> -sughosh
>
> >
> > Thanks
> > /Ilias
> > > If it is okay
> > > to increase code size on these platforms, I will change the calling
> > > function, such that the variable does not get set in case of an error.
> > > Maybe Casey and Mark can comment? Thanks.
> > >
> > > -sughosh
> > >
> > > >
> > > > -sughosh
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +       return addr;
> > > > > > +}
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +static phys_addr_t lmb_alloc_base(phys_size_t size, ulong align,
> > > > > > +                                 phys_addr_t max_addr, u32 flags)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +       int err;
> > > > > > +       phys_addr_t addr;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +       addr = max_addr;
> > > > > > +       err = lmb_alloc_mem(LMB_MEM_ALLOC_MAX, align, &addr, size, flags);
> > > > > > +       if (err)
> > > > > > +               return 0;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +       return addr;
> > > > > > +}
> > > > > > +
> > > > > >  #define lmb_alloc_addr(addr, size, flags) lmb_reserve(addr, size, flags)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  static int test_multi_alloc(struct unit_test_state *uts, const phys_addr_t ram,
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 2.34.1
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > /Ilias