Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] arm64: dts: add Hi6220 mailbox node

[Daniel Thompson]

On 26/08/15 02:25, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
> > Option 1:
> >
> > 	memory@0 {
> > 		device_type = "memory";
> > 		reg = <0x00000000 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x05e00000>,
> > 		      <0x00000000 0x05f00000 0x00000000 0x00eff000>,
> > 		      <0x00000000 0x06e00000 0x00000000 0x0060f000>,
> > 		      <0x00000000 0x07410000 0x00000000 0x38bf0000>;
> > 	};
> >
> > [snip]
>>
> > Option 2:
> >
> > 	memory@0 {
> > 		device_type = "memory";
> > 		reg = <0x0 0x0 0x0 0x40000000>;
> > 	};
>> [snip]
>>
> I prefer the second one. From my view, memory node should only describe
> the hardware information of memory.

Haven't we already established that, to avoid the risk of UEFI 
applications accessing inappropriate memory locations, a (correct) UEFI 
implementation must use, and pass to the kernel, a memory map that looks 
like option 1?

That being the case why would we want u-boot (or any other similar 
bootloader) to pass a memory map that is gratuitously different to the 
one supplied by UEFI?


Daniel.
--
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/