Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 2/7] xen/arm: make process_memory_node a device_tree_node_func

[Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Stefano,

Stefano Stabellini writes:

> 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 or if nr_banks is reached. Let
> the caller deal with the error.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefanos@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Changes in v5:
> - return -ENOENT if address_cells or size_cells are not properly set
>
> 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 | 29 +++++++++++++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c b/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
> index a872ea57d6..590b14304c 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
> @@ -125,9 +125,10 @@ int __init device_tree_for_each_node(const void *fdt, 
> int node,
>      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;
> @@ -137,18 +138,11 @@ static void __init process_memory_node(const void *fdt, 
> int node,
>      u32 reg_cells = address_cells + size_cells;
>
>      if ( address_cells < 1 || size_cells < 1 )
> -    {
> -        printk("fdt: node `%s': invalid #address-cells or #size-cells",
> -               name);
> -        return;
> -    }
> +        return -ENOENT;
>
>      prop = fdt_get_property(fdt, node, "reg", NULL);
>      if ( !prop )
> -    {
> -        printk("fdt: node `%s': missing `reg' property\n", name);
> -        return;
> -    }
> +        return -ENOENT;
>
>      cell = (const __be32 *)prop->data;
>      banks = fdt32_to_cpu(prop->len) / (reg_cells * sizeof (u32));
> @@ -162,6 +156,10 @@ 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;
Are you sure that this logic is correct?

For example, if NR_MEM_BANKS is 1, and we have exactly one memory node
in device tree, this function will fail. But it should not. I think you
want this condition: bootinfo.mem.nr_banks > NR_MEM_BANKS

> +    return 0;
>  }
>
>  static void __init process_multiboot_node(const void *fdt, int node,
> @@ -293,15 +291,18 @@ 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)


--
Volodymyr Babchuk at EPAM
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel