* [U-Boot] style issue: ft_board_setup() versus ft_verify_fdt()?
@ 2016-05-19 12:51 Robert P. J. Day
2016-05-21 3:28 ` Simon Glass
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Robert P. J. Day @ 2016-05-19 12:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
curious about recommended coding style related to modifying and
verifying FDTs ... i'm perusing common/image-fdt.c and can see the
order of (possible) operations here in the function
image_setup_libfdt():
* arch_fixup_fdt()
* ft_board_setup()
* ft_system_setup()
* fdt_fixup_ethernet()
... etc etc ...
* ft_verify_fdt()
where an earlier comment explains that last routine:
/*
* Verify the device tree.
*
* This function is called after all device tree fix-ups have been enacted,
* so that the final device tree can be verified. The definition of "verified"
* is up to the specific implementation. However, it generally means that the
* addresses of some of the devices in the device tree are compared with the
* actual addresses at which U-Boot has placed them.
*
* Returns 1 on success, 0 on failure. If 0 is returned, U-Boot will halt the
* boot process.
*/
__weak int ft_verify_fdt(void *fdt)
{
return 1;
}
which seems reasonable ... after you've mangled your FDT in every
way you need, optionally supply a routine to make sure it looks sane.
however, for the freescale board mpc8641hpcn.c, here's part of the
ft_board_setup() routine (actually, this is pretty much all that
function does):
if (tmp) {
u64 addr;
if (addrcells == 1)
addr = *(u32 *)tmp;
else
addr = *tmp;
if (addr != CONFIG_SYS_CCSRBAR_PHYS)
printf("WARNING: The CCSRBAR address in your .dts "
"does not match the address of the CCSR "
"in u-boot. This means your .dts might "
"be old.\n");
}
so the board setup routine is doing some quick sanity checking, which
is perfectly fine, but seems to be exactly the sort of thing
ft_verify_fdt() was designed for.
obviously, one can add sanity checking to any of those routines
depending on how early you want to notice stuff -- is there somewhere
a style guide that gives recommendations? just looking for "best
practices," thanks.
i'm sure there will be more FDT-related questions coming ... thank
you for your patience.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] style issue: ft_board_setup() versus ft_verify_fdt()?
2016-05-19 12:51 [U-Boot] style issue: ft_board_setup() versus ft_verify_fdt()? Robert P. J. Day
@ 2016-05-21 3:28 ` Simon Glass
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Simon Glass @ 2016-05-21 3:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Hi Robert,
On 19 May 2016 at 06:51, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
>
> curious about recommended coding style related to modifying and
> verifying FDTs ... i'm perusing common/image-fdt.c and can see the
> order of (possible) operations here in the function
> image_setup_libfdt():
>
> * arch_fixup_fdt()
> * ft_board_setup()
> * ft_system_setup()
> * fdt_fixup_ethernet()
> ... etc etc ...
> * ft_verify_fdt()
>
> where an earlier comment explains that last routine:
>
> /*
> * Verify the device tree.
> *
> * This function is called after all device tree fix-ups have been enacted,
> * so that the final device tree can be verified. The definition of "verified"
> * is up to the specific implementation. However, it generally means that the
> * addresses of some of the devices in the device tree are compared with the
> * actual addresses at which U-Boot has placed them.
> *
> * Returns 1 on success, 0 on failure. If 0 is returned, U-Boot will halt the
> * boot process.
> */
> __weak int ft_verify_fdt(void *fdt)
> {
> return 1;
> }
>
>
> which seems reasonable ... after you've mangled your FDT in every
> way you need, optionally supply a routine to make sure it looks sane.
>
> however, for the freescale board mpc8641hpcn.c, here's part of the
> ft_board_setup() routine (actually, this is pretty much all that
> function does):
>
>
> if (tmp) {
> u64 addr;
>
> if (addrcells == 1)
> addr = *(u32 *)tmp;
> else
> addr = *tmp;
>
> if (addr != CONFIG_SYS_CCSRBAR_PHYS)
> printf("WARNING: The CCSRBAR address in your .dts "
> "does not match the address of the CCSR "
> "in u-boot. This means your .dts might "
> "be old.\n");
> }
>
> so the board setup routine is doing some quick sanity checking, which
> is perfectly fine, but seems to be exactly the sort of thing
> ft_verify_fdt() was designed for.
>
> obviously, one can add sanity checking to any of those routines
> depending on how early you want to notice stuff -- is there somewhere
> a style guide that gives recommendations? just looking for "best
> practices," thanks.
>
> i'm sure there will be more FDT-related questions coming ... thank
> you for your patience.
My suggestion would be to always use an 'fdt_' prefix.
Regards,
Simon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-05-21 3:28 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-05-19 12:51 [U-Boot] style issue: ft_board_setup() versus ft_verify_fdt()? Robert P. J. Day
2016-05-21 3:28 ` Simon Glass
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.