Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Add Isolated Memory Regions for Quark X1000

[Darren Hart]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 03:11:35PM +0000, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> 
> >Suggest to split the imr_del() into 2 functions:-
> >(1) by address + size
> >(2) by IMR index
> >At current implementation, it does not support (2) only because it fails at
> >imr_check_range().
> 
> Hi Boon Leong.
> 
> I'll have a think about that :)
> 
> Just on imr_del() though, it does support removal by way of index.
> 
> +static void __init intel_galileo_imr_init(void)
> +{
> +	unsigned long base  = virt_to_phys(&_text);
> +	unsigned long size = virt_to_phys(&_sinittext) - base - IMR_ALIGN;
> +	int i, ret;
> +
> +	/* Tear down all existing unlocked IMRs */
> +	for (i = 0; i <= QUARK_X1000_IMR_NUM; i++)
> +		imr_del(i, 0, 0);
> 
> That's what the platform code has to do for every unlocked IMR, to make sure
> there are no stale IMRs left that could conflict with the EFI memory map !

I'm OK with a single function so long as by index works without having to
specify the address. Please update the kernel doc to describe this usage though.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/