From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:45:03 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] arm64: Documentation: clarify Image placement in physical RAM In-Reply-To: References: <1425296935-19097-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20150302142007.GD16779@leverpostej> Message-ID: <20150302144502.GF16779@leverpostej> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 02:27:35PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 2 March 2015 at 14:20, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 11:48:55AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> The early init code maps the kernel image using statically > >> allocated page tables. This means that we can only allow > >> Image to be placed such that we can map its entire static > >> footprint using a single table entry at all but the lowest > >> level. So update the documentation to reflect that the Image > >> should not cross a 512 MB boundary, which ensures the above > >> on both 4k and 64k pages kernels. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel > > > > Acked-by: Mark Rutland > > > > Thanks. > Note that the text is still wrong wrt to the FDT: > > """ > The device tree blob (dtb) must be placed on an 8-byte boundary within > the first 512 megabytes from the start of the kernel image [...] > """ > > but perhaps we should discuss first if we want to relax the > requirement that it shares the same 512 MB aligned region with the > kernel. > (RFC patch sent out last Friday, but there are some caveats) I think we do; I've commented in that thread. Assuming everyone else is happy with that, I guess these two patches should be kept as a series. Thanks, Mark.