|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 2/7] xen/arm: make process_memory_node a device_tree_node_func
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> On 06/08/2019 22:49, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > Change the signature of process_memory_node to match
> > device_tree_node_func. Thanks to this change, the next patch will be
> > able to use device_tree_for_each_node to call process_memory_node on all
> > the children of a provided node.
> >
> > Return error if there is no reg property, remove printk.
> > Return error if nr_banks is reached.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefanos@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Changes in v4:
> > - return error if there is no reg propery, remove printk
> > - return error if nr_banks is reached
> >
> > Changes in v3:
> > - improve commit message
> > - check return value of process_memory_node
> >
> > Changes in v2:
> > - new
> > ---
> > xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c | 25 +++++++++++++++----------
> > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c b/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
> > index dfce8c2bfe..c22d57cd72 100644
> > --- a/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
> > @@ -133,9 +133,10 @@ int __init device_tree_for_each_node(const void *fdt,
> > return 0;
> > }
> > -static void __init process_memory_node(const void *fdt, int node,
> > - const char *name,
> > - u32 address_cells, u32 size_cells)
> > +static int __init process_memory_node(const void *fdt, int node,
> > + const char *name, int depth,
> > + u32 address_cells, u32 size_cells,
> > + void *data)
> > {
> > const struct fdt_property *prop;
> > int i;
> > @@ -148,15 +149,12 @@ static void __init process_memory_node(const void
> > *fdt, int node,
> > {
> > printk("fdt: node `%s': invalid #address-cells or #size-cells",
> > name);
> > - return;
> > + return 0;
>
> Why does the lack of valid #address-cells and #size-cells is a success when...
>
>
> > }
> > prop = fdt_get_property(fdt, node, "reg", NULL);
> > if ( !prop )
> > - {
> > - printk("fdt: node `%s': missing `reg' property\n", name);
> > - return;
> > - }
> > + return -ENOENT;
>
> ... this is an error?
Yes, you have a good point. Both should be returning -ENOENT,
conceptually they are the same kind of issue. Also, I confirmed that it
works properly by returning -ENOENT in both cases.
I'll do that.
> > cell = (const __be32 *)prop->data;
> > banks = fdt32_to_cpu(prop->len) / (reg_cells * sizeof (u32));
> > @@ -170,6 +168,10 @@ static void __init process_memory_node(const void *fdt,
> > int node,
> > bootinfo.mem.bank[bootinfo.mem.nr_banks].size = size;
> > bootinfo.mem.nr_banks++;
> > }
> > +
> > + if ( bootinfo.mem.nr_banks == NR_MEM_BANKS )
> > + return -ENOSPC;
> > + return 0;
> > }
> > static void __init process_multiboot_node(const void *fdt, int node,
> > @@ -301,15 +303,18 @@ static int __init early_scan_node(const void *fdt,
> > u32 address_cells, u32 size_cells,
> > void *data)
> > {
> > + int rc = 0;
> > +
> > if ( device_tree_node_matches(fdt, node, "memory") )
> > - process_memory_node(fdt, node, name, address_cells, size_cells);
> > + rc = process_memory_node(fdt, node, name, depth,
> > + address_cells, size_cells, NULL);
> > else if ( depth <= 3 && (device_tree_node_compatible(fdt, node,
> > "xen,multiboot-module" ) ||
> > device_tree_node_compatible(fdt, node, "multiboot,module"
> > )))
> > process_multiboot_node(fdt, node, name, address_cells,
> > size_cells);
> > else if ( depth == 1 && device_tree_node_matches(fdt, node, "chosen")
> > )
> > process_chosen_node(fdt, node, name, address_cells, size_cells);
> > - return 0;
> > + return rc;
> > }
> > static void __init early_print_info(void)
> >
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Julien Grall
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |