From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: felipe.contreras@gmail.com (Felipe Contreras)
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 22:37:51 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] arm: mm: allow boards to fiddle with meminfo
In-Reply-To: <20101010190308.GA15906@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
References: <1286732440-28644-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
	<1286732440-28644-2-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
	<20101010190308.GA15906@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikoub1K3HOP=bs0moCk1vYD8gPEu7DCvrUnMATi@mail.gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 08:40:38PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> So that they can reserve some memory.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> ?arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h | ? ?2 +-
>> ?arch/arm/mm/init.c ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | ? ?7 ++++---
>> ?2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h
>> index 8a0dd18..408e4d5 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h
>> @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ struct machine_desc {
>> ? ? ? void ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?(*fixup)(struct machine_desc *,
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?struct tag *, char **,
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?struct meminfo *);
>> - ? ? void ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?(*reserve)(void);/* reserve mem blocks ?*/
>> + ? ? void ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?(*reserve)(struct meminfo *);/* reserve mem blocks ? ? ?*/
>> ? ? ? void ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?(*map_io)(void);/* IO mapping function ?*/
>> ? ? ? void ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?(*init_irq)(void);
>> ? ? ? struct sys_timer ? ? ? ?*timer; ? ? ? ? /* system tick timer ? ?*/
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/init.c b/arch/arm/mm/init.c
>> index 7185b00..4b5c117 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mm/init.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/init.c
>> @@ -272,8 +272,6 @@ void __init arm_memblock_init(struct meminfo *mi, struct machine_desc *mdesc)
>> ? ? ? int i;
>>
>> ? ? ? memblock_init();
>> - ? ? for (i = 0; i < mi->nr_banks; i++)
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? memblock_add(mi->bank[i].start, mi->bank[i].size);
>>
>> ? ? ? /* Register the kernel text, kernel data and initrd with memblock. */
>> ?#ifdef CONFIG_XIP_KERNEL
>> @@ -295,7 +293,10 @@ void __init arm_memblock_init(struct meminfo *mi, struct machine_desc *mdesc)
>>
>> ? ? ? /* reserve any platform specific memblock areas */
>> ? ? ? if (mdesc->reserve)
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? mdesc->reserve();
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? mdesc->reserve(mi);
>> +
>> + ? ? for (i = 0; i < mi->nr_banks; i++)
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? memblock_add(mi->bank[i].start, mi->bank[i].size);
>
> It is not a good idea to change the ordering here, as we'll now be
> adding the memory blocks _after_ we've started to make reservations
> into memblock.
>
> At least the omapfb code wants there to be memory present in memblock
> when ->reserve is called.

True. I initially added a new callback called reserve_mem(), but I
thought it would be nicer to avoid adding a new function almost
identical to an existing one.

Anyway, what is your suggestion? Can you come up with something else?

-- 
Felipe Contreras