[PATCH v3 2/8] [booke] Rename mapping based RELOCATABLE to DYNAMIC_MEMSTART for BookE

Scott Wood scottwood at freescale.com
Tue Nov 29 09:59:57 EST 2011

On 11/23/2011 10:47 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Suzuki K. Poulose <suzuki at in.ibm.com> wrote:
>> The current implementation of CONFIG_RELOCATABLE in BookE is based
>> on mapping the page aligned kernel load address to KERNELBASE. This
>> approach however is not enough for platforms, where the TLB page size
>> is large (e.g, 256M on 44x). So we are renaming the RELOCATABLE used
>> currently in BookE to DYNAMIC_MEMSTART to reflect the actual method.

Should reword the config help to make it clear what the alignment
restriction is, or where to find the information for a particular
platform.  Someone reading "page aligned" without any context that we're
talking about special large pages is going to think 4K -- and on e500,
many large page sizes are supported, so the required alignment is found
in Linux init code rather than a CPU manual.

>> The CONFIG_RELOCATABLE for PPC32(BookE) based on processing of the
>> dynamic relocations will be introduced in the later in the patch series.
>> This change would allow the use of the old method of RELOCATABLE for
>> platforms which can afford to enforce the page alignment (platforms with
>> smaller TLB size).
> I'm OK with the general direction, but this touches a lot of non-4xx
> code.  I'd prefer it if Ben took this directly on whatever final
> solution is done.
>> I haven tested this change only on 440x. I don't have an FSL BookE to verify
>> the changes there.
>> Scott,
>> Could you please test this patch on FSL and let me know the results ?
> Scott, did you ever get around to testing this?  In my opinion, this
> shouldn't go in without a Tested-by: from someone that tried it on an
> FSL platform.

Booted OK for me on e500v2 with RAM starting at 256M.

Tested-by: Scott Wood <scottwood at freescale.com>

> We add DYNAMIC_MEMSTART for 32-bit, and we have RELOCATABLE for
> 64-bit.  Then throughout almost the rest of the patch, all we're doing
> is duplicating what RELOCATABLE already did (e.g. if ! either thing).
> It works, but it is kind of ugly.
> Instead, could we define a helper config variable that can be used in
> place of that construct?  Something like:
> config NONSTATIC_KERNEL (or whatever)
>     bool
>     default n
> ...
>     <blah>
> ...
>     <blah>

I agree.


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list