RE: [PATCH 1/2] docs, xen/arm: Introduce reserved heap memory

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2022, Henry Wang wrote:
> > >                                         const char *name,
> > >                                         u32 address_cells, u32 size_cells)
> > >  {
> > > @@ -301,16 +303,40 @@ static void __init process_chosen_node(const
> > void *fdt, int node,
> > >      paddr_t start, end;
> > >      int len;
> > >
> > > +    if ( fdt_get_property(fdt, node, "xen,static-mem", NULL) )
> > > +    {
> > > +        u32 address_cells = device_tree_get_u32(fdt, node,
> > > +                                                
> > > "#xen,static-mem-address-cells",
> > > +                                                0);
> > > +        u32 size_cells = device_tree_get_u32(fdt, node,
> > > +                                             
> > > "#xen,static-mem-size-cells", 0);
> > > +        int rc;
> > > +
> > > +        printk("Checking for reserved heap in /chosen\n");
> > > +        if ( address_cells < 1 || size_cells < 1 )
> > address_cells and size_cells cannot be negative so you could just check if
> > there are 0.
> 
> In bootfdt.c function device_tree_get_meminfo(), the address and size cells
> are checked using <1 instead of =0. I agree they cannot be negative, but I am
> not very sure if there were other reasons to do the "<1" check in
> device_tree_get_meminfo(). Are you fine with we don't keep the consistency
> here?

I would keep the < 1 check but it doesn't make much difference either
way