From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 11:21:03 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 0/5] arm64: update/clarify/relax Image and FDT placement rules In-Reply-To: References: <1425380630-3684-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20150310112103.GC28168@leverpostej> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Ard, On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:51:03AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 3 March 2015 at 12:03, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > This series came about after Mark Rutland brought up the fact that the current > > FDT placement logic used by the EFI stub is flawed. But actually, it turned out > > that the documentation for both the Image and FDT placement was incorrect as > > well, or confusing at the very least. > > > > So this series does two things: > > - It relaxes the FDT placement requirements, and updates the documentation and > > EFI stub FDT placement logic accordingly. > > - It clarifies the Image placement requirements in the documentation, and brings > > the EFI stub Image placement logic in line with it > > > > Anyone care to comment on these patches? Sorry; I'd been intending to look at these but haven't yet had the chance to give them a thorough review. From my glances so far they look good, though. I'll try to give this a proper look shortly. [...] > If we prefer not to use the fixmap region for the FDT, the latter > issue should be addressed in a different way. I'm quite keen on using the fixmap for the FDT. It makes matters simpler for other bootloaders too, and means we can do more thorough sanity checking from C code (which is easier than in asm). Thanks, Mark.