From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: efi: make sure vmlinux load address aligned on 2MBytes Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 17:27:36 +0000 Message-ID: <20151028172735.GL18966@arm.com> References: <1445981041-8774-1-git-send-email-timur@codeaurora.org> <563101DD.8080508@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <563101DD.8080508-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Timur Tabi Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , Mark Rutland , Mark Salter , "linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , Matt Fleming , Shanker Donthineni , Mark Langsdorf , Jon Masters List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 12:11:57PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > On 10/27/2015 09:06 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/efi-stub.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi-stub.c > >index 816120ece6bc..a60ce249cfc0 100644 > >--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/efi-stub.c > >+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi-stub.c > >@@ -42,7 +42,8 @@ > > * Mustang), we can still place the kernel at the address > > * 'dram_base + TEXT_OFFSET'. > > */ > >- *image_addr = *reserve_addr = dram_base + TEXT_OFFSET; > >+ *image_addr = *reserve_addr = round_up(dram_base, SZ_2M) + > >+ TEXT_OFFSET); > > nr_pages = round_up(kernel_memsize, EFI_ALLOC_ALIGN) / > > EFI_PAGE_SIZE; > > status = efi_call_early(allocate_pages, EFI_ALLOCATE_ADDRESS, > > Tested-by: Timur Tabi > Tested-by: Shanker Donthineni > > However, I think this formatting is easier to read: > > *image_addr = *reserve_addr = > round_up(dram_base, SZ_2M) + TEXT_OFFSET; > > This does make the kernel boot, but we suspect that there may be another > problem. We need to investigate it, but we have a suspicion that the EFI > stub is trying to allocate from the Runtime Data block, and the alignment > adjustment "fixes" the problem by moving the pointer to Conventional Memory. > > Anyway, is there any chance we can get this fix into 4.3? I'd hate to have > 4.3 released knowing that it's broken on our hardware. If you want something in for 4.3, you'll need to post a new patch in a separate thread and I'd like to see at least Ard's ack on it. Will