The address range to scan for the coreboot tables varies from machine to
machine based on the range memory occupies on the SOC being booted and on the
amount of memory installed on the machine. To make libpayload work on
different ARM systems with different needs, this change makes the region to
scan configurable. In the future, we might want to come up with a more
automatic mechanism like on x86, although there's less consistency on ARM as
far as what ranges are even memory in the first place.
Change-Id: Ib50efe25a6152171b0fbd0e324dbc5e89c527d6e
Signed-off-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.chromium.org/gerrit/59242
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@chromium.org>
Tested-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@chromium.org>
Commit-Queue: Gabe Black <gabeblack@chromium.org>
Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/4254
Reviewed-by: Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins)
Otherwise the code would try to parse GPIOs when encountering
a mainboard entry in the coreboot table. This never caused any
problems because the mainboard entry is parsed before the GPIO
entry.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Reinauer <reinauer@google.com>
Change-Id: I1443bda8585a990a39115743d48304ec4b54bccb
Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.chromium.org/gerrit/59292
Reviewed-by: Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@chromium.org>
Commit-Queue: Stefan Reinauer <reinauer@google.com>
Tested-by: Stefan Reinauer <reinauer@google.com>
Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/4252
Reviewed-by: Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins)
Change-Id: I3235f42c7faaf28a63455162ea55dc1a6bebd1f5
Signed-off-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Hung-Te Lin <hungte@google.com>
Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.chromium.org/gerrit/48290
Reviewed-by: Hung-Te Lin <hungte@chromium.org>
Tested-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@chromium.org>
Commit-Queue: Gabe Black <gabeblack@chromium.org>
Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/4128
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins)
Reviewed-by: Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>
After another incident related to virtual pointers in lib_sysinfo (and
resulting confusion), I decided to put some comments on the matter into
the code.
Remember, we decided to always use virtual pointers in lib_sysinfo, but
it's not always obvious from the code, that they are.
See also:
425973c libpayload: Always use virtual pointers in struct sysinfo_t
593f577 libpayload: Fix use of virtual pointers in sysinfo
Change-Id: I886c3b1d182cba07f1aab1667e702e2868ad4b68
Signed-off-by: Nico Huber <nico.huber@secunet.com>
Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/2878
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins)
Reviewed-by: Stefan Reinauer <stefan.reinauer@coreboot.org>
These live at the bottom of memory on x86, but that's IO mapped on the exynos.
The particular range used will likely need to be configurable, but this will
make it work in one more case than it used to.
Change-Id: I4d4963b9732cf538d00f8effb4398f30cbbde6aa
Signed-off-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>
Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/2410
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins)
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: David Hendricks <dhendrix@chromium.org>
This compiles, but it's not tested yet.
Change-Id: I2f73a814649aa36c39af3e77cefd8a968671f5c0
Signed-off-by: Stefan Reinauer <reinauer@google.com>
Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/2035
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins)
Reviewed-by: Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>
Gabe Black