From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: timur@codeaurora.org (Timur Tabi)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:35:02 -0600
Subject: [PATCH v3 06/10] arm64: efi: add EFI stub
In-Reply-To: <E4BDBC23-A96A-4D84-B7EE-B7967D4E4DDD@linaro.org>
References: <1396637113-22790-1-git-send-email-leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
 <1396637113-22790-7-git-send-email-leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
 <CAOZdJXWU1dmFfCc88RMp3SvouU7roDiJsA=3aHzwijwhMH7naA@mail.gmail.com>
 <E4BDBC23-A96A-4D84-B7EE-B7967D4E4DDD@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <73a460e5-98f5-86c2-142f-a9a084ee0203@codeaurora.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 02/08/2017 10:29 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> >> +       status = handle_cmdline_files(sys_table, image, cmdline_ptr,
>>> >> +                                     "initrd=", dram_base + SZ_512M,
>>> >> +                                     (unsigned long *)&initrd_addr,
>>> >> +                                     (unsigned long *)&initrd_size);
>> >
>> > So I know this patch is almost three years old, but why is there a
>> > 512M limit on the initrd size?
>> >
> How do you reckon this constitutes a limit?

handle_cmdline_files() calls efi_high_alloc() with that limit.  I'm still 
trying to understand all the details myself, but apparently our firmware and 
initrd need to fit within the first 512MB because of dram_base + SZ_512M. 
When we change "dram_base + SZ_512M" to "~0", everything works.

-- 
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc.  Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.