| commit | e70af24b42190481e19c9adb727b97a0fc794ea8 | |
| author | Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> | |
| Thu, 16 May 2019 14:47:30 +0000 (16 15:47 +0100) | ||
| committer | Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> | |
| Mon, 17 Jun 2019 14:11:18 +0000 (17 15:11 +0100) | ||
| tree | f35ba34febd81b3172bf6e54f7c28e4207c90fab | treesnapshot (tar.gz zip) |
| parent | 5d0e5694470d2952b4f257bc985cac8c89b4fd92 | commitdiff |
hw/arm/boot: Don't assume RAM starts at address zero
In the Arm kernel/initrd loading code, in some places we make the
incorrect assumption that info->ram_size can be treated as the
address of the end of RAM, as for instance when we calculate the
available space for the initrd using "info->ram_size - info->initrd_start".
This is wrong, because many Arm boards (including "virt") specify
a non-zero info->loader_start to indicate that their RAM area
starts at a non-zero physical address.
Correct the places which make this incorrect assumption.
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Tested-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Message-id: 20190516144733.32399-2-peter.maydell@linaro.org
In the Arm kernel/initrd loading code, in some places we make the
incorrect assumption that info->ram_size can be treated as the
address of the end of RAM, as for instance when we calculate the
available space for the initrd using "info->ram_size - info->initrd_start".
This is wrong, because many Arm boards (including "virt") specify
a non-zero info->loader_start to indicate that their RAM area
starts at a non-zero physical address.
Correct the places which make this incorrect assumption.
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Tested-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Message-id: 20190516144733.32399-2-peter.maydell@linaro.org
| hw/arm/boot.c | diffblobblamehistory |