Signed-off-by: NAndreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Signed-off-by: NAndreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

- print test pattern instead of pattern number,
- show pattern as stored in memory,
- use proper priority flags,
- consistent use of u64 throughout the code
Signed-off-by: NAndreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Impact: code cleanup
Signed-off-by: NAndreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Impact: code cleanup
Signed-off-by: NAndreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Impact: fix unexpected behaviour when pattern number is out of range

Current implementation provides 4 patterns for memtest. The code doesn't
check whether the memtest parameter value exceeds the maximum pattern number.

Instead the memtest code pretends to test with non-existing patterns, e.g.
when booting with memtest=10 I've observed the following

  ...
  early_memtest: pattern num 10
  0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 0
  ...
  0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 1
  ...
  0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 2
  ...
  0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 3
  ...
  0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 4
  ...
  0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 5
  ...
  0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 6
  ...
  0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 7
  ...
  0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 8
  ...
  0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 9
  ...

But in fact Linux didn't test anything for patterns > 4 as the default
case in memtest() is to leave the function.

I suggest to use the memtest parameter as the number of tests to be
performed and to re-iterate over all existing patterns.
Signed-off-by: NAndreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Hi all,

Wrong usage of 2nd parameter in reserve_early call.
66/75: reserve_early(start_bad, last_bad - start_bad, "BAD RAM");
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The correct way is to use 'end' address and not 'size'.
As a bonus a fix to the printk format.
Signed-off-by: NDaniele Calore <orkaan@orkaan.org>
Acked-by: NYinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

it's separate functionality that deserves its own file.

This also prepares 32-bit memtest support.
Signed-off-by: NYinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>