From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com (e4.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.144]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e4.ny.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA313B712B for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2011 01:08:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.85]) by e4.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p14Dnge0008515 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 08:49:42 -0500 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 168DF4DE8040 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:07:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (d03av05.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.85]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p14E88ks417006 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:08:09 -0500 Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p14E88Gv006738 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 07:08:08 -0700 Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:07:32 -0500 From: Josh Boyer To: Dave Kleikamp Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 5/6] powerpc/44x: boot wrapper: allow kernel to load into non-zero address Message-ID: <20110204140732.GG17643@zod.rchland.ibm.com> References: <1296586126-32765-1-git-send-email-shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1296586126-32765-6-git-send-email-shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1296586126-32765-6-git-send-email-shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 12:48:45PM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote: >+static ibm4xx_memstart; >+ > static void iss_4xx_fixups(void) > { >- ibm4xx_sdram_fixup_memsize(); >+ void *memory; >+ u32 reg[3]; >+ >+ memory = finddevice("/memory"); >+ if (!memory) >+ fatal("Can't find memory node\n"); >+ getprop(memory, "reg", reg, sizeof(reg)); >+ if (reg[1] || reg[2]) Wouldn't this test allow for a faulty device tree that specified a 0 size (0x0 in reg[2])? Maybe just check reg[2] for non-zero instead? josh