Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 10 Feb 2020 11:26:29 -0800
From:      Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com>
To:        freebsd-arm <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: RPi4's memreserve use in fdt not handled by aarch64 fdt_get_reserved_mem (called via its initarm)
Message-ID:  <EE1EC418-DD8D-4789-9924-7DA36A44464F@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <6F4936C9-34A1-4490-8F5A-D1C2B2CE6232@yahoo.com>
References:  <DF1349C0-ACFA-4FA9-9AC2-507BD0DBB0DE@yahoo.com> <6F4936C9-34A1-4490-8F5A-D1C2B2CE6232@yahoo.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2020-Feb-9, at 22:00, Mark Millard <marklmi at yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 2020-Feb-9, at 21:12, Mark Millard <marklmi at yahoo.com> wrote:
>=20
>> aarch64 seems to be ignoring the RPi4B's memreserve use.
>>=20
>> My hypothesis is that head -r356776 and later are
>> allocating RAM areas that overlap with the
>> memreserve area.
>>=20
>> 1st see separate submittals about the live dts text reported
>> by fdt print in u-boot on the example RPi4B 4 GiByte machine:
>>=20
>> =
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arm/2020-February/021207.html
>> =
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arm/2020-February/021205.html
>>=20
>> Then:
>>=20
>> aarch64's initarm uses fdt_get_reserved_mem and not
>> fdt_get_reserved_regions. So, looking at what that
>> implies:
>>=20
>> int
>> fdt_get_reserved_mem(struct mem_region *reserved, int *mreserved)
>> {
>>       pcell_t reg[FDT_REG_CELLS];
>>       phandle_t child, root;
>>       int addr_cells, size_cells;
>>       int i, rv;
>>=20
>>       root =3D OF_finddevice("/reserved-memory");
>>       if (root =3D=3D -1) {
>>               return (ENXIO);
>>       }
>> . . . (I'll not list it all to show the lack of
>> memreserve handling) . . .
>>=20
>> This does not check for and handle memreserve.=20
>>=20
>> By contrast armv7 and armv6 each have an initarm
>> that uses fdt_get_reserved_regions and that in
>> turn has:
>>=20
>> int
>> fdt_get_reserved_regions(struct mem_region *mr, int *mrcnt)
>> {
>>       pcell_t reserve[FDT_REG_CELLS * FDT_MEM_REGIONS];
>>       pcell_t *reservep;
>>       phandle_t memory, root;
>>       int addr_cells, size_cells;
>>       int i, res_len, rv, tuple_size, tuples;
>>=20
>>       root =3D OF_finddevice("/");
>>       memory =3D OF_finddevice("/memory");
>>       if (memory =3D=3D -1) {
>>               rv =3D ENXIO;
>>               goto out;
>>       }
>>=20
>>       if ((rv =3D fdt_addrsize_cells(OF_parent(memory), &addr_cells,
>>           &size_cells)) !=3D 0)
>>               goto out;
>>=20
>>       if (addr_cells > 2) {
>>               rv =3D ERANGE;
>>               goto out;
>>       }
>>=20
>>       tuple_size =3D sizeof(pcell_t) * (addr_cells + size_cells);
>>=20
>>       res_len =3D OF_getproplen(root, "memreserve");
>>       if (res_len <=3D 0 || res_len > sizeof(reserve)) {
>>               rv =3D ERANGE;
>>               goto out;
>>       }
>>=20
>>       if (OF_getprop(root, "memreserve", reserve, res_len) <=3D 0) {
>>               rv =3D ENXIO;
>>               goto out;
>>       }
>> . . .
>>=20
>> So this handles memreserve but not /reserved-memory .
>>=20
>> It appears that for the RPi4B's the 32-bit "normal use"
>> has lead to aarch64 having memreserve instead of
>> /reserved-memory .
>>=20
>=20
> I managed to make a quick test patch for head -r356529
> but it did not make the RPi4B boot attempt behave
> differently. So, either I messed up or handling memreserve
> is not sufficient. (Some alternate information might be
> covering the address range already?)

Example alternate information was:

        memory@0 {
                device_type =3D "memory";
                reg =3D <0x00000000 0x00000000 0x3b400000 0x00000000 =
0x40000000 0xbc000000>;
        };

That looks like it avoids indicating anything from the
memreserve region. (I've no clue if such is a requirement
for memory@0, but it happens to be the case for the test
context.)

> I'm not familiar with the subject matter in the code, so
> I may have messed up the test. I just used:
>=20
> # svnlite diff /usr/src/sys/dev/fdt/fdt_common.c
> Index: /usr/src/sys/dev/fdt/fdt_common.c
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> --- /usr/src/sys/dev/fdt/fdt_common.c	(revision 357529)
> +++ /usr/src/sys/dev/fdt/fdt_common.c	(working copy)
> @@ -512,6 +512,11 @@
>=20
> 	root =3D OF_finddevice("/reserved-memory");
> 	if (root =3D=3D -1) {
> +		// Fail over to checking for and handling memreserve,
> +		// such as for a RPi4B.
> +		if (0 =3D=3D =
fdt_get_reserved_regions(reserved,mreserved))
> +			return (0);
> +
> 		return (ENXIO);
> 	}

I do not know if such is appropriate code or not. For my
specific test context, it makes no difference.


=3D=3D=3D
Mark Millard
marklmi at yahoo.com
( dsl-only.net went
away in early 2018-Mar)




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?EE1EC418-DD8D-4789-9924-7DA36A44464F>