From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Fainelli Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] arch: Move initrd= parsing into do_mounts_initrd.c Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 16:52:37 -0800 Message-ID: <04d6d0cb-8e60-88a0-061e-62c7c70024c5@gmail.com> References: <20181105225431.24485-1-f.fainelli@gmail.com> <20181105225431.24485-7-f.fainelli@gmail.com> <05f56763-1530-933d-2ce3-3653ad4c685f@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Vineet Gupta , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Cc: Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Rob Herring , Frank Rowand , Andrew Morton , Marc Zyngier , Russell King , Andrey Ryabinin , Andrey Konovalov , Masahiro Yamada , Robin Murphy , Laura Abbott , Stefan Agner , Johannes Weiner , Greg Hackmann , Kristina Martsenko , CHANDAN VN , "moderated list:ARM64 PORT (AARCH64 ARCHITECTURE)" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 11/12/18 4:40 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote: > On 11/12/18 4:38 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote: >>>> #ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD >>>> - if (initrd_start) >>>> - memblock_reserve(__pa(initrd_start), initrd_end - initrd_start); >>>> + if (phys_initrd_size) { >>>> + memblock_reserve(phys_initrd_start, phys_initrd_size); >>>> + initrd_start = (unsigned long)__va(phys_initrd_start); >>>> + initrd_end = initrd_start + phys_initrd_size; >>>> + } >>>> #endif >>> The common code now uses phys_initrd*, and you also use the same in ARC code, do >>> we still need the initrd_* setting here ? >>> ARC semantics was using them as PA anyways. >> Yes, the generic initrd code expects initrd_start/end to be virtual >> addresses, which we now directly derive from phys_initrd_start, that >> should really be equivalent. > > So we can skip this explicit setting above - ARC arch code doesn't access the virt > initrd_start OK, you are saying we could just have the generic initrd code do this assignment instead of having each architecture do it, is that a correct understanding? If so, I suppose it could be done, whether as of this patch series or as a follow-up, either way is fine with me. One possible caveat is if __va() and __phys_to_virt() behave differently (e.g: because of CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL or other things). -- Florian