On 6/26/2014 8:06 PM, Tushar Behera wrote:
On 06/27/2014 01:12 AM, Laura Abbott wrote:
+static unsigned int bank_cnt; +static unsigned int max_cnt;
int __init arm_add_memory(u64 start, u64 size) { u64 aligned_start;
/*
* Some buggy bootloaders rely on the old meminfo behavior of not adding* more than n banks since anything past that may contain invalid data.*/if (bank_cnt >= max_cnt) {
pr_crit("Max banks too low, ignoring memory at 0x%08llx\n",(long long)start);return -EINVAL;}
bank_cnt++;
/*
- Ensure that start/size are aligned to a page boundary.
- Size is appropriately rounded down, start is rounded up.
*/
@@ -879,6 +894,7 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p) mdesc = setup_machine_tags(__atags_pointer, __machine_arch_type); machine_desc = mdesc; machine_name = mdesc->name;
- max_cnt = mdesc->bank_limit;
arm_add_memory is getting called before this is being set, resulting in none of the memory banks getting added[1].
setup_machine_fdt -> early_init_dt_scan -> early_init_dt_scan_memory
Would it make sense to re-introduce the config option ARM_NR_BANKS and replace max_cnt with NR_BANKS?
I was hoping to avoid re-introducing the config option but that may be the case if we can't make the machine_info work. I'll take a better look tomorrow.
Thanks, Laura