From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sricharan R Subject: RE: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP2+: TEMP: Round of the carve out memory requested to section_size Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:12:32 +0530 Message-ID: References: <1347429117-10919-1-git-send-email-r.sricharan@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: Received: from na3sys009aog136.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.85]:53890 "EHLO na3sys009aog136.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751034Ab2ILImf (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Sep 2012 04:42:35 -0400 Received: by vbbff1 with SMTP id ff1so1739901vbb.19 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 01:42:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Santosh Shilimkar Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org [..] > > memblock_steal tries to reserve physical memory during boot. > > When the requested size is not aligned on the section size > > then, the remaining memory available for lowmem becomes > > unaligned on the section boundary. There is a issue with this, > > which is discussed in the thread below. > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/28/112 > > > > The final conclusion from the thread seems to > > be align the memblock_steal calls on the SECTION boundary. > > > > Signed-off-by: R Sricharan > Why is the TEMP in the subject line. From patch it doesn't be > temporary version. Can you please clarify that ? > Oops, that was a mistake. Reposted by correcting it. Thanks, Sricharan