Re: [RFT PATCH v3 27/27] arm64: apple: Add initial Apple Mac mini (M1, 2020) devicetree
From: Hector Martin <hidden>
Date: 2021-03-05 16:51:37
Also in:
linux-arch, linux-arm-kernel, linux-devicetree, linux-doc, linux-samsung-soc, lkml
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2021-03-05 · Re: [RFT PATCH v3 27/27] arm64: apple: Add initial Apple Mac mini (M1, 2020) devicetree · Krzysztof Kozlowski <hidden>
- 2021-03-05 · Re: [RFT PATCH v3 27/27] arm64: apple: Add initial Apple Mac mini (M1, 2020) devicetree · Hector Martin <hidden>
- 2021-03-05 · Re: [RFT PATCH v3 27/27] arm64: apple: Add initial Apple Mac mini (M1, 2020) devicetree · Krzysztof Kozlowski <hidden>
- 2021-03-04 · [RFT PATCH v3 27/27] arm64: apple: Add initial Apple Mac mini (M1, 2020) devicetree · Hector Martin <hidden>
On 06/03/2021 00.59, Mark Kettenis wrote:
It may be better to handle the memory reserved by the firmware using a "/reserved-memory" node. I think the benefit of that could be that it communicates the entire range of physical memory to the kernel, which means it could use large mappings in the page tables. Unless the "/reserved-memory" node defines a region that has the "no-map" property of course.
We actually need no-map, because otherwise the CPU could speculate its way into these carveouts (it's not just firmware, there's stuff in here the CPU really can't be allowed to touch, e.g. the SEP carveout). It also breaks simplefb mapping the framebuffer. I thought of the reserved-memory approach, but then figured it wouldn't buy us anything for this reason. -- Hector Martin (marcan@marcan.st) Public Key: https://mrcn.st/pub