Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] arch: Move initrd= parsing into do_mounts_initrd.c

[Florian Fainelli]

On 11/12/18 4:57 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On 11/12/18 4:52 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 11/12/18 4:40 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>>> On 11/12/18 4:38 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD
>>>>>> -	if (initrd_start)
>>>>>> -		memblock_reserve(__pa(initrd_start), initrd_end - initrd_start);
>>>>>> +	if (phys_initrd_size) {
>>>>>> +		memblock_reserve(phys_initrd_start, phys_initrd_size);
>>>>>> +		initrd_start = (unsigned long)__va(phys_initrd_start);
>>>>>> +		initrd_end = initrd_start + phys_initrd_size;
>>>>>> +	}
>>>>>>  #endif
>>>>> The common code now uses phys_initrd*, and you also use the same in ARC code, do
>>>>> we still need the initrd_* setting here ?
>>>>> ARC semantics was using them as PA anyways.
>>>> Yes, the generic initrd code expects initrd_start/end to be virtual
>>>> addresses, which we now directly derive from phys_initrd_start, that
>>>> should really be equivalent.
>>> So we can skip this explicit setting above - ARC arch code doesn't access the virt
>>> initrd_start
>> OK, you are saying we could just have the generic initrd code do this
>> assignment instead of having each architecture do it, is that a correct
>> understanding? 
> 
> Correct !
> 
>> If so, I suppose it could be done, whether as of this
>> patch series or as a follow-up, either way is fine with me.
> 
> If it is not too much trouble, I'd prefer this now. I should have chimed earlier.
> 
>> One possible caveat is if __va() and __phys_to_virt() behave differently
>> (e.g: because of CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL or other things).
> 
> 
> Thing is, after your patches, we don't use the vanilla initrd_xxx in arch code any
> longer. So this becomes just an implementation detail, which core code may or
> maynot need and if it does, this needs to work already w/o having to set anything
> in arch code. Agree ?

If you do not mind, I would prefer this series to go in, as-is, and
clean up the initrd_start/initrd_end assignment as a follow up patch
series. The reason is mostly that I am not yet clear on the timing of
these operations between the architecture resolving the virtual address
and the initrd code starting to use it.

Would that sound reasonable to you?
-- 
Florian