License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license
Many source files in the tree are missing licensing information, which
makes it harder for compliance tools to determine the correct license.
By default all files without license information are under the default
license of the kernel, which is GPL version 2.
Update the files which contain no license information with the 'GPL-2.0'
SPDX license identifier. The SPDX identifier is a legally binding
shorthand, which can be used instead of the full boiler plate text.
This patch is based on work done by Thomas Gleixner and Kate Stewart and
Philippe Ombredanne.
How this work was done:
Patches were generated and checked against linux-4.14-rc6 for a subset of
the use cases:
- file had no licensing information it it.
- file was a */uapi/* one with no licensing information in it,
- file was a */uapi/* one with existing licensing information,
Further patches will be generated in subsequent months to fix up cases
where non-standard license headers were used, and references to license
had to be inferred by heuristics based on keywords.
The analysis to determine which SPDX License Identifier to be applied to
a file was done in a spreadsheet of side by side results from of the
output of two independent scanners (ScanCode & Windriver) producing SPDX
tag:value files created by Philippe Ombredanne. Philippe prepared the
base worksheet, and did an initial spot review of a few 1000 files.
The 4.13 kernel was the starting point of the analysis with 60,537 files
assessed. Kate Stewart did a file by file comparison of the scanner
results in the spreadsheet to determine which SPDX license identifier(s)
to be applied to the file. She confirmed any determination that was not
immediately clear with lawyers working with the Linux Foundation.
Criteria used to select files for SPDX license identifier tagging was:
- Files considered eligible had to be source code files.
- Make and config files were included as candidates if they contained >5
lines of source
- File already had some variant of a license header in it (even if <5
lines).
All documentation files were explicitly excluded.
The following heuristics were used to determine which SPDX license
identifiers to apply.
- when both scanners couldn't find any license traces, file was
considered to have no license information in it, and the top level
COPYING file license applied.
For non */uapi/* files that summary was:
SPDX license identifier # files
---------------------------------------------------|-------
GPL-2.0 11139
and resulted in the first patch in this series.
If that file was a */uapi/* path one, it was "GPL-2.0 WITH
Linux-syscall-note" otherwise it was "GPL-2.0". Results of that was:
SPDX license identifier # files
---------------------------------------------------|-------
GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note 930
and resulted in the second patch in this series.
- if a file had some form of licensing information in it, and was one
of the */uapi/* ones, it was denoted with the Linux-syscall-note if
any GPL family license was found in the file or had no licensing in
it (per prior point). Results summary:
SPDX license identifier # files
---------------------------------------------------|------
GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note 270
GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 169
((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-2-Clause) 21
((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-3-Clause) 17
LGPL-2.1+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 15
GPL-1.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 14
((GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-3-Clause) 5
LGPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 4
LGPL-2.1 WITH Linux-syscall-note 3
((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR MIT) 3
((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) AND MIT) 1
and that resulted in the third patch in this series.
- when the two scanners agreed on the detected license(s), that became
the concluded license(s).
- when there was disagreement between the two scanners (one detected a
license but the other didn't, or they both detected different
licenses) a manual inspection of the file occurred.
- In most cases a manual inspection of the information in the file
resulted in a clear resolution of the license that should apply (and
which scanner probably needed to revisit its heuristics).
- When it was not immediately clear, the license identifier was
confirmed with lawyers working with the Linux Foundation.
- If there was any question as to the appropriate license identifier,
the file was flagged for further research and to be revisited later
in time.
In total, over 70 hours of logged manual review was done on the
spreadsheet to determine the SPDX license identifiers to apply to the
source files by Kate, Philippe, Thomas and, in some cases, confirmation
by lawyers working with the Linux Foundation.
Kate also obtained a third independent scan of the 4.13 code base from
FOSSology, and compared selected files where the other two scanners
disagreed against that SPDX file, to see if there was new insights. The
Windriver scanner is based on an older version of FOSSology in part, so
they are related.
Thomas did random spot checks in about 500 files from the spreadsheets
for the uapi headers and agreed with SPDX license identifier in the
files he inspected. For the non-uapi files Thomas did random spot checks
in about 15000 files.
In initial set of patches against 4.14-rc6, 3 files were found to have
copy/paste license identifier errors, and have been fixed to reflect the
correct identifier.
Additionally Philippe spent 10 hours this week doing a detailed manual
inspection and review of the 12,461 patched files from the initial patch
version early this week with:
- a full scancode scan run, collecting the matched texts, detected
license ids and scores
- reviewing anything where there was a license detected (about 500+
files) to ensure that the applied SPDX license was correct
- reviewing anything where there was no detection but the patch license
was not GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note to ensure that the applied
SPDX license was correct
This produced a worksheet with 20 files needing minor correction. This
worksheet was then exported into 3 different .csv files for the
different types of files to be modified.
These .csv files were then reviewed by Greg. Thomas wrote a script to
parse the csv files and add the proper SPDX tag to the file, in the
format that the file expected. This script was further refined by Greg
based on the output to detect more types of files automatically and to
distinguish between header and source .c files (which need different
comment types.) Finally Greg ran the script using the .csv files to
generate the patches.
Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
2017-11-01 14:07:57 +00:00
|
|
|
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
|
2008-06-02 06:26:23 +00:00
|
|
|
#include <linux/kernel.h>
|
|
|
|
|
#include <linux/init.h>
|
2010-08-25 20:39:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#include <linux/memblock.h>
|
2008-06-02 06:26:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <asm/setup.h>
|
|
|
|
|
#include <asm/bios_ebda.h>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code
So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of
problems over the years that make it really difficult to read
and understand:
- The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily
interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks...
- 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other
parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it
super confusing to read.
- It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which
are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial
property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to
understand all this.
- Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is
obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's
the _start_ of the EBDA region ...
- 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value
that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address!
- The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while
its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and
1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ...
- Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this
too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case.
- In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function
*really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is
inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure
'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer.
To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic):
- Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start'
and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants.
BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES
BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF
ebda_start // was: ebda_addr
bios_start // was: lowmem
BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP
- Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it
to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt
flag to ::reserve_bios_regions.
- Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their
formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to
the much better naming all around.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
|
|
|
* This function reserves all conventional PC system BIOS related
|
|
|
|
|
* firmware memory areas (some of which are data, some of which
|
|
|
|
|
* are code), that must not be used by the kernel as available
|
|
|
|
|
* RAM.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
2008-06-02 06:26:23 +00:00
|
|
|
* The BIOS places the EBDA/XBDA at the top of conventional
|
|
|
|
|
* memory, and usually decreases the reported amount of
|
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code
So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of
problems over the years that make it really difficult to read
and understand:
- The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily
interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks...
- 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other
parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it
super confusing to read.
- It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which
are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial
property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to
understand all this.
- Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is
obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's
the _start_ of the EBDA region ...
- 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value
that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address!
- The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while
its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and
1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ...
- Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this
too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case.
- In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function
*really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is
inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure
'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer.
To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic):
- Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start'
and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants.
BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES
BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF
ebda_start // was: ebda_addr
bios_start // was: lowmem
BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP
- Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it
to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt
flag to ::reserve_bios_regions.
- Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their
formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to
the much better naming all around.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
|
|
|
* conventional memory (int 0x12) too.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* This means that as a first approximation on most systems we can
|
|
|
|
|
* guess the reserved BIOS area by looking at the low BIOS RAM size
|
|
|
|
|
* value and assume that everything above that value (up to 1MB) is
|
|
|
|
|
* reserved.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* But life in firmware country is not that simple:
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* - This code also contains a quirk for Dell systems that neglect
|
|
|
|
|
* to reserve the EBDA area in the 'RAM size' value ...
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* - The same quirk also avoids a problem with the AMD768MPX
|
|
|
|
|
* chipset: reserve a page before VGA to prevent PCI prefetch
|
|
|
|
|
* into it (errata #56). (Usually the page is reserved anyways,
|
|
|
|
|
* unless you have no PS/2 mouse plugged in.)
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* - Plus paravirt systems don't have a reliable value in the
|
|
|
|
|
* 'BIOS RAM size' pointer we can rely on, so we must quirk
|
|
|
|
|
* them too.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Due to those various problems this function is deliberately
|
|
|
|
|
* very conservative and tries to err on the side of reserving
|
|
|
|
|
* too much, to not risk reserving too little.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Losing a small amount of memory in the bottom megabyte is
|
|
|
|
|
* rarely a problem, as long as we have enough memory to install
|
|
|
|
|
* the SMP bootup trampoline which *must* be in this area.
|
2013-02-27 20:46:40 +00:00
|
|
|
*
|
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code
So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of
problems over the years that make it really difficult to read
and understand:
- The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily
interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks...
- 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other
parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it
super confusing to read.
- It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which
are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial
property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to
understand all this.
- Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is
obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's
the _start_ of the EBDA region ...
- 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value
that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address!
- The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while
its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and
1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ...
- Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this
too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case.
- In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function
*really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is
inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure
'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer.
To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic):
- Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start'
and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants.
BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES
BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF
ebda_start // was: ebda_addr
bios_start // was: lowmem
BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP
- Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it
to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt
flag to ::reserve_bios_regions.
- Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their
formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to
the much better naming all around.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
|
|
|
* Using memory that is in use by the BIOS or by some DMA device
|
|
|
|
|
* the BIOS didn't shut down *is* a big problem to the kernel,
|
|
|
|
|
* obviously.
|
2008-06-02 06:26:23 +00:00
|
|
|
*/
|
2013-02-27 20:46:40 +00:00
|
|
|
|
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code
So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of
problems over the years that make it really difficult to read
and understand:
- The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily
interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks...
- 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other
parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it
super confusing to read.
- It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which
are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial
property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to
understand all this.
- Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is
obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's
the _start_ of the EBDA region ...
- 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value
that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address!
- The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while
its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and
1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ...
- Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this
too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case.
- In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function
*really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is
inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure
'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer.
To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic):
- Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start'
and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants.
BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES
BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF
ebda_start // was: ebda_addr
bios_start // was: lowmem
BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP
- Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it
to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt
flag to ::reserve_bios_regions.
- Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their
formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to
the much better naming all around.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
|
|
|
#define BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR 0x413
|
2013-02-27 20:46:40 +00:00
|
|
|
|
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code
So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of
problems over the years that make it really difficult to read
and understand:
- The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily
interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks...
- 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other
parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it
super confusing to read.
- It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which
are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial
property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to
understand all this.
- Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is
obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's
the _start_ of the EBDA region ...
- 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value
that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address!
- The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while
its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and
1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ...
- Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this
too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case.
- In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function
*really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is
inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure
'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer.
To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic):
- Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start'
and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants.
BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES
BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF
ebda_start // was: ebda_addr
bios_start // was: lowmem
BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP
- Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it
to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt
flag to ::reserve_bios_regions.
- Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their
formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to
the much better naming all around.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
|
|
|
#define BIOS_START_MIN 0x20000U /* 128K, less than this is insane */
|
|
|
|
|
#define BIOS_START_MAX 0x9f000U /* 640K, absolute maximum */
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void __init reserve_bios_regions(void)
|
2008-06-02 06:26:23 +00:00
|
|
|
{
|
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code
So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of
problems over the years that make it really difficult to read
and understand:
- The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily
interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks...
- 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other
parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it
super confusing to read.
- It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which
are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial
property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to
understand all this.
- Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is
obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's
the _start_ of the EBDA region ...
- 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value
that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address!
- The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while
its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and
1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ...
- Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this
too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case.
- In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function
*really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is
inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure
'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer.
To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic):
- Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start'
and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants.
BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES
BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF
ebda_start // was: ebda_addr
bios_start // was: lowmem
BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP
- Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it
to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt
flag to ::reserve_bios_regions.
- Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their
formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to
the much better naming all around.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
|
|
|
unsigned int bios_start, ebda_start;
|
2008-06-02 06:26:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-27 20:46:40 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code
So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of
problems over the years that make it really difficult to read
and understand:
- The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily
interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks...
- 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other
parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it
super confusing to read.
- It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which
are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial
property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to
understand all this.
- Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is
obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's
the _start_ of the EBDA region ...
- 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value
that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address!
- The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while
its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and
1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ...
- Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this
too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case.
- In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function
*really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is
inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure
'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer.
To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic):
- Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start'
and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants.
BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES
BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF
ebda_start // was: ebda_addr
bios_start // was: lowmem
BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP
- Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it
to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt
flag to ::reserve_bios_regions.
- Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their
formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to
the much better naming all around.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
|
|
|
* NOTE: In a paravirtual environment the BIOS reserved
|
|
|
|
|
* area is absent. We'll just have to assume that the
|
|
|
|
|
* paravirt case can handle memory setup correctly,
|
|
|
|
|
* without our help.
|
2013-02-27 20:46:40 +00:00
|
|
|
*/
|
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code
So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of
problems over the years that make it really difficult to read
and understand:
- The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily
interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks...
- 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other
parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it
super confusing to read.
- It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which
are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial
property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to
understand all this.
- Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is
obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's
the _start_ of the EBDA region ...
- 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value
that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address!
- The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while
its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and
1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ...
- Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this
too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case.
- In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function
*really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is
inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure
'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer.
To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic):
- Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start'
and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants.
BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES
BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF
ebda_start // was: ebda_addr
bios_start // was: lowmem
BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP
- Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it
to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt
flag to ::reserve_bios_regions.
- Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their
formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to
the much better naming all around.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
|
|
|
if (!x86_platform.legacy.reserve_bios_regions)
|
2008-06-02 06:26:23 +00:00
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
|
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code
So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of
problems over the years that make it really difficult to read
and understand:
- The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily
interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks...
- 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other
parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it
super confusing to read.
- It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which
are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial
property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to
understand all this.
- Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is
obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's
the _start_ of the EBDA region ...
- 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value
that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address!
- The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while
its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and
1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ...
- Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this
too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case.
- In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function
*really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is
inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure
'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer.
To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic):
- Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start'
and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants.
BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES
BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF
ebda_start // was: ebda_addr
bios_start // was: lowmem
BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP
- Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it
to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt
flag to ::reserve_bios_regions.
- Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their
formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to
the much better naming all around.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* BIOS RAM size is encoded in kilobytes, convert it
|
|
|
|
|
* to bytes to get a first guess at where the BIOS
|
|
|
|
|
* firmware area starts:
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
bios_start = *(unsigned short *)__va(BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR);
|
|
|
|
|
bios_start <<= 10;
|
2008-06-02 06:26:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code
So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of
problems over the years that make it really difficult to read
and understand:
- The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily
interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks...
- 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other
parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it
super confusing to read.
- It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which
are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial
property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to
understand all this.
- Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is
obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's
the _start_ of the EBDA region ...
- 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value
that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address!
- The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while
its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and
1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ...
- Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this
too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case.
- In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function
*really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is
inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure
'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer.
To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic):
- Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start'
and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants.
BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES
BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF
ebda_start // was: ebda_addr
bios_start // was: lowmem
BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP
- Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it
to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt
flag to ::reserve_bios_regions.
- Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their
formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to
the much better naming all around.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If bios_start is less than 128K, assume it is bogus
|
2016-07-21 21:16:52 +00:00
|
|
|
* and bump it up to 640K. Similarly, if bios_start is above 640K,
|
|
|
|
|
* don't trust it.
|
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code
So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of
problems over the years that make it really difficult to read
and understand:
- The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily
interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks...
- 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other
parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it
super confusing to read.
- It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which
are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial
property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to
understand all this.
- Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is
obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's
the _start_ of the EBDA region ...
- 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value
that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address!
- The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while
its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and
1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ...
- Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this
too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case.
- In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function
*really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is
inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure
'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer.
To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic):
- Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start'
and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants.
BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES
BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF
ebda_start // was: ebda_addr
bios_start // was: lowmem
BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP
- Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it
to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt
flag to ::reserve_bios_regions.
- Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their
formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to
the much better naming all around.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
|
|
|
*/
|
2016-07-21 21:16:52 +00:00
|
|
|
if (bios_start < BIOS_START_MIN || bios_start > BIOS_START_MAX)
|
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code
So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of
problems over the years that make it really difficult to read
and understand:
- The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily
interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks...
- 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other
parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it
super confusing to read.
- It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which
are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial
property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to
understand all this.
- Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is
obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's
the _start_ of the EBDA region ...
- 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value
that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address!
- The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while
its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and
1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ...
- Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this
too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case.
- In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function
*really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is
inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure
'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer.
To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic):
- Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start'
and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants.
BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES
BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF
ebda_start // was: ebda_addr
bios_start // was: lowmem
BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP
- Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it
to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt
flag to ::reserve_bios_regions.
- Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their
formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to
the much better naming all around.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
|
|
|
bios_start = BIOS_START_MAX;
|
2008-06-02 06:26:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2016-07-21 21:16:52 +00:00
|
|
|
/* Get the start address of the EBDA page: */
|
|
|
|
|
ebda_start = get_bios_ebda();
|
|
|
|
|
|
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code
So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of
problems over the years that make it really difficult to read
and understand:
- The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily
interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks...
- 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other
parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it
super confusing to read.
- It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which
are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial
property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to
understand all this.
- Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is
obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's
the _start_ of the EBDA region ...
- 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value
that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address!
- The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while
its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and
1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ...
- Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this
too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case.
- In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function
*really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is
inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure
'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer.
To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic):
- Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start'
and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants.
BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES
BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF
ebda_start // was: ebda_addr
bios_start // was: lowmem
BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP
- Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it
to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt
flag to ::reserve_bios_regions.
- Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their
formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to
the much better naming all around.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
2016-07-21 21:16:52 +00:00
|
|
|
* If the EBDA start address is sane and is below the BIOS region,
|
|
|
|
|
* then also reserve everything from the EBDA start address up to
|
|
|
|
|
* the BIOS region.
|
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code
So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of
problems over the years that make it really difficult to read
and understand:
- The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily
interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks...
- 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other
parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it
super confusing to read.
- It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which
are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial
property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to
understand all this.
- Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is
obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's
the _start_ of the EBDA region ...
- 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value
that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address!
- The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while
its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and
1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ...
- Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this
too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case.
- In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function
*really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is
inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure
'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer.
To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic):
- Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start'
and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants.
BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES
BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF
ebda_start // was: ebda_addr
bios_start // was: lowmem
BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP
- Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it
to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt
flag to ::reserve_bios_regions.
- Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their
formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to
the much better naming all around.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
|
|
|
*/
|
2016-07-21 21:16:52 +00:00
|
|
|
if (ebda_start >= BIOS_START_MIN && ebda_start < bios_start)
|
|
|
|
|
bios_start = ebda_start;
|
2008-06-02 06:26:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code
So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of
problems over the years that make it really difficult to read
and understand:
- The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily
interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks...
- 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other
parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it
super confusing to read.
- It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which
are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial
property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to
understand all this.
- Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is
obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's
the _start_ of the EBDA region ...
- 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value
that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address!
- The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while
its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and
1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ...
- Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this
too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case.
- In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function
*really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is
inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure
'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer.
To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic):
- Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start'
and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants.
BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES
BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF
ebda_start // was: ebda_addr
bios_start // was: lowmem
BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP
- Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it
to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt
flag to ::reserve_bios_regions.
- Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their
formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to
the much better naming all around.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
|
|
|
/* Reserve all memory between bios_start and the 1MB mark: */
|
|
|
|
|
memblock_reserve(bios_start, 0x100000 - bios_start);
|
2008-06-02 06:26:23 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
