From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C149C433E1 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 20:02:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEF672070E for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 20:02:57 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org BEF672070E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B7hqz28cHzDrVx for ; Sat, 18 Jul 2020 06:02:55 +1000 (AEST) Received: from ozlabs.org (bilbo.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B7hnC2mJRzDrRM for ; Sat, 18 Jul 2020 06:00:31 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Received: from ozlabs.org (bilbo.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::2]) by bilbo.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B7hnC1Rbbz9CMP for ; Sat, 18 Jul 2020 06:00:31 +1000 (AEST) Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix) id 4B7hnC0xVqz9sSn; Sat, 18 Jul 2020 06:00:31 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=hbathini@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B7hnB48JLz9sRk for ; Sat, 18 Jul 2020 06:00:29 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06HJWejB000636; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 16:00:23 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32aurbp35e-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Jul 2020 16:00:23 -0400 Received: from m0098399.ppops.net (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 06HJWfw6000844; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 16:00:22 -0400 Received: from ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (62.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.98]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32aurbp345-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Jul 2020 16:00:22 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06HJfp9V015856; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 20:00:20 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.194]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 327527y1vn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Jul 2020 20:00:20 +0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 06HK0HWS25625038 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 17 Jul 2020 20:00:17 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CB8811C069; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 20:00:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34F8711C04C; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 20:00:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.102.22.153] (unknown [9.102.22.153]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 20:00:13 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/12] powerpc/kexec_file: add helper functions for getting memory ranges From: Hari Bathini To: Thiago Jung Bauermann References: <159466074408.24747.10036072269371204890.stgit@hbathini.in.ibm.com> <159466087136.24747.16494497863685481495.stgit@hbathini.in.ibm.com> <874kq98xo4.fsf@morokweng.localdomain> <0684ed3d-0dde-8dce-f12c-72ef86bc91f9@linux.ibm.com> Message-ID: <1b09c0e4-54c9-7dd6-4402-81c9d1ba3ee0@linux.ibm.com> Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2020 01:30:13 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0684ed3d-0dde-8dce-f12c-72ef86bc91f9@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-17_09:2020-07-17, 2020-07-17 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_definite policy=outbound score=100 mlxscore=100 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=-1000 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 spamscore=100 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007170131 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Pingfan Liu , Petr Tesarik , Nayna Jain , Kexec-ml , Mahesh J Salgaonkar , Mimi Zohar , lkml , linuxppc-dev , Sourabh Jain , Andrew Morton , Dave Young , Vivek Goyal , Eric Biederman Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On 17/07/20 10:02 am, Hari Bathini wrote: > > > On 15/07/20 5:19 am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: >> >> Hello Hari, >> >> Hari Bathini writes: >> >>> In kexec case, the kernel to be loaded uses the same memory layout as >>> the running kernel. So, passing on the DT of the running kernel would >>> be good enough. >>> >>> But in case of kdump, different memory ranges are needed to manage >>> loading the kdump kernel, booting into it and exporting the elfcore >>> of the crashing kernel. The ranges are exlude memory ranges, usable >> >> s/exlude/exclude/ >> >>> memory ranges, reserved memory ranges and crash memory ranges. >>> >>> Exclude memory ranges specify the list of memory ranges to avoid while >>> loading kdump segments. Usable memory ranges list the memory ranges >>> that could be used for booting kdump kernel. Reserved memory ranges >>> list the memory regions for the loading kernel's reserve map. Crash >>> memory ranges list the memory ranges to be exported as the crashing >>> kernel's elfcore. >>> >>> Add helper functions for setting up the above mentioned memory ranges. >>> This helpers facilitate in understanding the subsequent changes better >>> and make it easy to setup the different memory ranges listed above, as >>> and when appropriate. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Hari Bathini >>> Tested-by: Pingfan Liu >> > > > >>> +/** >>> + * add_reserved_ranges - Adds "/reserved-ranges" regions exported by f/w >>> + * to the given memory ranges list. >>> + * @mem_ranges: Range list to add the memory ranges to. >>> + * >>> + * Returns 0 on success, negative errno on error. >>> + */ >>> +int add_reserved_ranges(struct crash_mem **mem_ranges) >>> +{ >>> + int i, len, ret = 0; >>> + const __be32 *prop; >>> + >>> + prop = of_get_property(of_root, "reserved-ranges", &len); >>> + if (!prop) >>> + return 0; >>> + >>> + /* >>> + * Each reserved range is an (address,size) pair, 2 cells each, >>> + * totalling 4 cells per range. >> >> Can you assume that, or do you need to check the #address-cells and >> #size-cells properties of the root node? > > Taken from early_reserve_mem_dt() which did not seem to care. > Should we be doing any different here? On second thoughts, wouldn't hurt to be extra cautious. Will use #address-cells & #size-cells to parse reserved-ranges. Thanks Hari