Re: Fwd: Re: [PATCH v17 02/10] of: Add a common kexec FDT setup function

Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2021-02-12T01:10:58Z

On 2/11/21 3:59 PM, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>
> Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@linux.microsoft.com> writes:
>
>> On 2/11/21 9:42 AM, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
>>> Hi Rob,
>>> [PATCH] powerpc: Rename kexec elfcorehdr_addr to elf_headers_mem
>>> This change causes build problem for x86_64 architecture (please see the
>>> mail from kernel test bot below) since arch/x86/include/asm/kexec.h uses
>>> "elf_load_addr" for the ELF header buffer address and not
>>> "elf_headers_mem".
>>> struct kimage_arch {
>>> ...
>>> /* Core ELF header buffer */
>>> void *elf_headers;
>>> unsigned long elf_headers_sz;
>>> unsigned long elf_load_addr;
>>> };
>>> I am thinking of limiting of_kexec_alloc_and_setup_fdt() to ARM64 and
>>> PPC64 since they are the only ones using this function now.
>>> #if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) && defined(CONFIG_PPC64)
>> Sorry - I meant to say
>> #if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) || defined(CONFIG_PPC64)
>>
>
> Does it build correctly if you rename elf_headers_mem to elf_load_addr?
> Or the other way around, renaming x86's elf_load_addr to
> elf_headers_mem. I don't really have a preference.

Yes - changing arm64 and ppc from "elf_headers_mem" to "elf_load_addr"
builds fine.

But I am concerned about a few other architectures that also define
"struct kimage_arch" such as "parisc", "arm" which do not have any ELF
related fields. They would not build if the config defines
CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE and CONFIG_OF_FLATTREE.

Do you think that could be an issue?

thanks,
-lakshmi

>
> That would be better than adding an #if condition.
>
>>> void *of_kexec_alloc_and_setup_fdt(const struct kimage *image,
>>> unsigned long initrd_load_addr,
>>> unsigned long initrd_len,
>>> const char *cmdline)
>>> {
>>> ...
>>> }
>>> #endif /* defined(CONFIG_ARM64) && defined(CONFIG_PPC64) */
>>> Please let me know if you have any concerns.
>>> thanks,
>>> -lakshmi