From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hdegoede@redhat.com (Hans de Goede) Date: Sat, 09 May 2015 15:54:00 +0200 Subject: Memory size unaligned to section boundary In-Reply-To: <20150509134818.GP2067@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20150506101104.GD2067@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20150506105102.GB5382@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20150506113503.GT2067@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <554E0DC8.4060401@redhat.com> <20150509134818.GP2067@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <554E1178.5030409@redhat.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, On 09-05-15 15:48, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 03:38:16PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Ok, so does that mean that Mark's original patch: >> >> ---->8---- >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c >> index 4e6ef89..2ea13f0 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c >> @@ -1125,9 +1125,9 @@ void __init sanity_check_meminfo(void) >> * occurs before any free memory is mapped. >> */ >> if (!memblock_limit) { >> - if (!IS_ALIGNED(block_start, SECTION_SIZE)) >> + if (!IS_ALIGNED(block_start, PMD_SIZE)) >> memblock_limit = block_start; >> - else if (!IS_ALIGNED(block_end, SECTION_SIZE)) >> + else if (!IS_ALIGNED(block_end, PMD_SIZE)) >> memblock_limit = arm_lowmem_limit; >> } >> >> @@ -1142,7 +1142,7 @@ void __init sanity_check_meminfo(void) >> * last full section, which should be mapped. >> */ >> if (memblock_limit) >> - memblock_limit = round_down(memblock_limit, SECTION_SIZE); >> + memblock_limit = round_down(memblock_limit, PMD_SIZE); >> if (!memblock_limit) >> memblock_limit = arm_lowmem_limit; >> >> >> Is good, or do we only need to have the last chunk of this patch ? > > That should do it, thanks. "that should do it" means the entire patch or only the last chunk? Regards, Hans