[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v2 07/15] x86/hyperlaunch: initial support for hyperlaunch device tree
- To: Jason Andryuk <jason.andryuk@xxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- From: "Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:47:38 -0500
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=apertussolutions.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dmarc=pass header.from=<dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1736963261; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:From:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:Subject:To:To:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=f0hX9slKCdmAZPrw4d9Mc8tP6Sq7M8FYgsZIfrlpNqQ=; b=Oaei4Kz4r3EzK1SAwlYyl2Jpe+RwEC3UcqcSuah9nMm8JDh0JdjLEHird38NtVvn64w8NRbG+u06NeuEUzeQ2Cb2QFumav6fIoQAqg9k3rZ6yJnC+DU9Zs3q8xs9nds1zl3rVSvvCAc5FFpc/U1TmHEeQtU2z188jYxtdU+04eU=
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1736963261; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=JYWIOhZqImmzpqoVH6gpdDeE5eXipdmf3zhuhChtHW9peHmAp+TNaaTRMYI3pVIqisG8ILw7uzQ/kkEYYmOhkjQqY2CbGAChrqTIhm/1NHOABvfAAyDCyFo1ySM+omlMxSi2RXagQ/sQB2UN18lcJum2+//aLQfguilIgVC6Z10=
- Cc: christopher.w.clark@xxxxxxxxx, stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxx, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 17:47:53 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 1/10/25 17:20, Jason Andryuk wrote:
On 2024-12-26 11:57, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
Add the ability to detect both a formal hyperlaunch device tree or a
dom0less
device tree. If the hyperlaunch device tree is found, then count the
number of
domain entries, reporting an error if more than one is found.
Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Smith <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/domain-builder/fdt.c b/xen/arch/x86/domain-
builder/fdt.c
index 4a3f80648f86..5793bdc9fd47 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/domain-builder/fdt.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain-builder/fdt.c
@@ -13,14 +13,77 @@
#include "fdt.h"
+static int __init find_hyperlaunch_node(const void *fdt)
+{
+ int hv_node = fdt_path_offset(fdt, "/chosen/hypervisor");
+
+ if ( hv_node >= 0 )
+ {
+ /* Anything other than zero indicates no match */
+ if ( fdt_node_check_compatible(fdt, hv_node, "hypervisor,xen") )
+ return -ENODATA;
+ else
+ return hv_node;
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ /* Lood for dom0less config */
Look
Ack.
+ int node, chosen_node = fdt_path_offset(fdt, "/chosen");
+ if ( chosen_node < 0 )
+ return -ENOENT;
+
+ fdt_for_each_subnode(node, fdt, chosen_node)
+ {
+ if ( fdt_node_check_compatible(fdt, node, "xen,domain")
== 0 )
+ return chosen_node;
+ }
+ }
+
+ return -ENODATA;
+}
+
int __init has_hyperlaunch_fdt(struct boot_info *bi)
{
int ret = 0;
const void *fdt = bootstrap_map_bm(&bi-
>mods[HYPERLAUNCH_MODULE_IDX]);
- if ( fdt_check_header(fdt) < 0 )
+ if ( !fdt || fdt_check_header(fdt) < 0 )
It seems to me the !fdt check should move into the earlier patch. What
do you think?
You are correct, the two conditions should have been added together.
ret = -EINVAL;
+ else
+ ret = find_hyperlaunch_node(fdt);
+
+ bootstrap_unmap();
+
+ return ret < 0 ? ret : 0;
+}
+
+int __init walk_hyperlaunch_fdt(struct boot_info *bi)
+{
+ int ret = 0, hv_node, node;
+ void *fdt = bootstrap_map_bm(&bi->mods[HYPERLAUNCH_MODULE_IDX]);
+
+ if ( unlikely(!fdt) )
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ hv_node = find_hyperlaunch_node(fdt);
You call find_hyperlaunch_node() twice. It seems like you can just have
has_hyperlaunch_fdt() return the node and pass it into this function.
Can do.
v/r,
dps
|
