| Message ID | 1347429117-10919-1-git-send-email-r.sricharan@ti.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:21 AM, R Sricharan <r.sricharan@ti.com> wrote: > memblock_steal tries to reserve physical memory during boot. > When the requested size is not aligned on the section size > then, the remaining memory available for lowmem becomes > unaligned on the section boundary. There is a issue with this, > which is discussed in the thread below. > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/28/112 > > The final conclusion from the thread seems to > be align the memblock_steal calls on the SECTION boundary. > > Signed-off-by: R Sricharan <r.sricharan@ti.com> Why is the TEMP in the subject line. From patch it doesn't be temporary version. Can you please clarify that ? Regards Santosh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[..] > > memblock_steal tries to reserve physical memory during boot. > > When the requested size is not aligned on the section size > > then, the remaining memory available for lowmem becomes > > unaligned on the section boundary. There is a issue with this, > > which is discussed in the thread below. > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/28/112 > > > > The final conclusion from the thread seems to > > be align the memblock_steal calls on the SECTION boundary. > > > > Signed-off-by: R Sricharan <r.sricharan@ti.com> > Why is the TEMP in the subject line. From patch it doesn't be > temporary version. Can you please clarify that ? > Oops, that was a mistake. Reposted by correcting it. Thanks, Sricharan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-secure.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-secure.c index d9ae4a5..26edfec 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-secure.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-secure.c @@ -61,8 +61,8 @@ int __init omap_secure_ram_reserve_memblock(void) { u32 size = OMAP_SECURE_RAM_STORAGE; - size = ALIGN(size, SZ_1M); - omap_secure_memblock_base = arm_memblock_steal(size, SZ_1M); + size = ALIGN(size, SECTION_SIZE); + omap_secure_memblock_base = arm_memblock_steal(size, SECTION_SIZE); return 0; }
memblock_steal tries to reserve physical memory during boot. When the requested size is not aligned on the section size then, the remaining memory available for lowmem becomes unaligned on the section boundary. There is a issue with this, which is discussed in the thread below. https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/28/112 The final conclusion from the thread seems to be align the memblock_steal calls on the SECTION boundary. Signed-off-by: R Sricharan <r.sricharan@ti.com> --- arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-secure.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)