From: daniel.thompson@linaro.org (Daniel Thompson)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v1 3/3] arm64: dts: add Hi6220 mailbox node
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:54:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55DF32C9.8040302@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1440552341.10987.53.camel@linaro.org>
On 26/08/15 02:25, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
>> Option 1:
>>
>> memory at 0 {
>> device_type = "memory";
>> reg = <0x00000000 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x05e00000>,
>> <0x00000000 0x05f00000 0x00000000 0x00eff000>,
>> <0x00000000 0x06e00000 0x00000000 0x0060f000>,
>> <0x00000000 0x07410000 0x00000000 0x38bf0000>;
>> };
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Option 2:
>>
>> memory at 0 {
>> device_type = "memory";
>> reg = <0x0 0x0 0x0 0x40000000>;
>> };
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>
> I prefer the second one. From my view, memory node should only describe
> the hardware information of memory.
Haven't we already established that, to avoid the risk of UEFI
applications accessing inappropriate memory locations, a (correct) UEFI
implementation must use, and pass to the kernel, a memory map that looks
like option 1?
That being the case why would we want u-boot (or any other similar
bootloader) to pass a memory map that is gratuitously different to the
one supplied by UEFI?
Daniel.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-27 15:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-19 9:37 [PATCH v1 0/3] mailbox: hisilicon: add Hi6220 mailbox driver Leo Yan
2015-08-19 9:37 ` [PATCH v1 1/3] dt-bindings: mailbox: Document " Leo Yan
2015-08-25 11:17 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-08-25 13:01 ` Leo Yan
2015-08-19 9:37 ` [PATCH v1 2/3] mailbox: Hi6220: add " Leo Yan
2015-08-19 9:37 ` [PATCH v1 3/3] arm64: dts: add Hi6220 mailbox node Leo Yan
2015-08-21 18:40 ` Mark Rutland
2015-08-22 13:30 ` Leo Yan
2015-08-24 3:27 ` Leo Yan
2015-08-24 9:18 ` Leo Yan
2015-08-24 9:51 ` Mark Rutland
2015-08-24 10:19 ` Haojian Zhuang
2015-08-24 11:49 ` Leif Lindholm
2015-08-25 8:13 ` Haojian Zhuang
2015-08-25 9:46 ` Leif Lindholm
2015-08-25 10:15 ` Haojian Zhuang
2015-08-25 10:40 ` Leif Lindholm
2015-08-25 10:42 ` Mark Rutland
2015-08-25 13:43 ` Haojian Zhuang
2015-08-25 14:24 ` Leif Lindholm
2015-08-25 14:51 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-08-25 15:37 ` Leif Lindholm
2015-08-25 15:45 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-08-26 2:41 ` Haojian Zhuang
2015-08-25 16:00 ` Leo Yan
2015-08-26 1:25 ` Haojian Zhuang
2015-08-26 6:59 ` Leo Yan
2015-08-27 16:31 ` Mark Rutland
2015-08-28 6:37 ` Leo Yan
2015-08-27 15:54 ` Daniel Thompson [this message]
2015-08-27 16:46 ` Mark Rutland
2015-08-24 12:48 ` Mark Rutland
2015-08-25 8:04 ` Haojian Zhuang
2015-08-25 11:09 ` Mark Rutland
2015-08-25 11:36 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-08-25 14:04 ` Leo Yan
2015-08-25 14:13 ` Sudeep Holla
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=55DF32C9.8040302@linaro.org \
--to=daniel.thompson@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).