Re: [PATCH v3 14/16] x86/hyperlaunch: add memory parsing to domain config

["Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

V/r,
Daniel P. Smith
Apertus Solutions, LLC

On 4/16/25 09:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.04.2025 15:37, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> > On 4/10/25 08:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > On 08.04.2025 18:07, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> > > > @@ -212,6 +213,39 @@ static int __init process_domain_node(
> > > >                else
> > > >                    printk("PV\n");
> > > >            }
> > > > +        else if ( strncmp(prop_name, "memory", name_len) == 0 )
> > > > +        {
> > > > +            uint64_t kb;
> > > > +            if ( fdt_prop_as_u64(prop, &kb) != 0 )
> > > Nit (you know what I have to say here, and again below.)
> > >
> > > > +            {
> > > > +                printk("  failed processing memory for domain %s\n", name);
> > > > +                return -EINVAL;
> > > Any reason to override fdt_prop_as_u64()'s return value here?
> > IMHO this should be a function that libfdt should provide, but altering
> > libftd directly would make uprev'ing it challenging. The least I could
> > do is make the function behave like the rest of libfdt's helper functions.
> How's this related to the question that I raised? I didn't question the
> function, but a particular aspect of the specific use that is being made
> of it here.
Your question was, "Any reason to override fdt_prop_as_u64()'s return 
value here?"
And my answer was, I copied libfdt's behavior for its helper functions. 
IOW, to have the helper behave like libfdt's other helper functions.
v/r,
dps