xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
To: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
	Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
	Stefano Stabellini <stefanos@xilinx.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 2/7] xen/arm: make process_memory_node a device_tree_node_func
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 14:08:58 -0700 (PDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908091406510.7788@sstabellini-ThinkPad-T480s> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0d1293f3-c214-34ed-de79-bf6f6919789b@arm.com>

On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
> 
> On 06/08/2019 22:49, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > Change the signature of process_memory_node to match
> > device_tree_node_func. Thanks to this change, the next patch will be
> > able to use device_tree_for_each_node to call process_memory_node on all
> > the children of a provided node.
> > 
> > Return error if there is no reg property, remove printk.
> > Return error if nr_banks is reached.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefanos@xilinx.com>
> > ---
> > Changes in v4:
> > - return error if there is no reg propery, remove printk
> > - return error if nr_banks is reached
> > 
> > Changes in v3:
> > - improve commit message
> > - check return value of process_memory_node
> > 
> > Changes in v2:
> > - new
> > ---
> >   xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c | 25 +++++++++++++++----------
> >   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c b/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
> > index dfce8c2bfe..c22d57cd72 100644
> > --- a/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
> > @@ -133,9 +133,10 @@ int __init device_tree_for_each_node(const void *fdt,
> >       return 0;
> >   }
> >   -static void __init process_memory_node(const void *fdt, int node,
> > -                                       const char *name,
> > -                                       u32 address_cells, u32 size_cells)
> > +static int __init process_memory_node(const void *fdt, int node,
> > +                                      const char *name, int depth,
> > +                                      u32 address_cells, u32 size_cells,
> > +                                      void *data)
> >   {
> >       const struct fdt_property *prop;
> >       int i;
> > @@ -148,15 +149,12 @@ static void __init process_memory_node(const void
> > *fdt, int node,
> >       {
> >           printk("fdt: node `%s': invalid #address-cells or #size-cells",
> >                  name);
> > -        return;
> > +        return 0;
> 
> Why does the lack of valid #address-cells and #size-cells is a success when...
> 
> 
> >       }
> >         prop = fdt_get_property(fdt, node, "reg", NULL);
> >       if ( !prop )
> > -    {
> > -        printk("fdt: node `%s': missing `reg' property\n", name);
> > -        return;
> > -    }
> > +        return -ENOENT;
> 
> ... this is an error?

Yes, you have a good point. Both should be returning -ENOENT,
conceptually they are the same kind of issue. Also, I confirmed that it
works properly by returning -ENOENT in both cases.

I'll do that.


> >         cell = (const __be32 *)prop->data;
> >       banks = fdt32_to_cpu(prop->len) / (reg_cells * sizeof (u32));
> > @@ -170,6 +168,10 @@ static void __init process_memory_node(const void *fdt,
> > int node,
> >           bootinfo.mem.bank[bootinfo.mem.nr_banks].size = size;
> >           bootinfo.mem.nr_banks++;
> >       }
> > +
> > +    if ( bootinfo.mem.nr_banks == NR_MEM_BANKS )
> > +        return -ENOSPC;
> > +    return 0;
> >   }
> >     static void __init process_multiboot_node(const void *fdt, int node,
> > @@ -301,15 +303,18 @@ static int __init early_scan_node(const void *fdt,
> >                                     u32 address_cells, u32 size_cells,
> >                                     void *data)
> >   {
> > +    int rc = 0;
> > +
> >       if ( device_tree_node_matches(fdt, node, "memory") )
> > -        process_memory_node(fdt, node, name, address_cells, size_cells);
> > +        rc = process_memory_node(fdt, node, name, depth,
> > +                                 address_cells, size_cells, NULL);
> >       else if ( depth <= 3 && (device_tree_node_compatible(fdt, node,
> > "xen,multiboot-module" ) ||
> >                 device_tree_node_compatible(fdt, node, "multiboot,module"
> > )))
> >           process_multiboot_node(fdt, node, name, address_cells,
> > size_cells);
> >       else if ( depth == 1 && device_tree_node_matches(fdt, node, "chosen")
> > )
> >           process_chosen_node(fdt, node, name, address_cells, size_cells);
> >   -    return 0;
> > +    return rc;
> >   }
> >     static void __init early_print_info(void)
> > 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -- 
> Julien Grall
> 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

  reply	other threads:[~2019-08-09 21:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-08-06 21:49 [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 0/7] reserved-memory in dom0 Stefano Stabellini
2019-08-06 21:49 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 1/7] xen/arm: extend device_tree_for_each_node Stefano Stabellini
2019-08-07 16:08   ` Julien Grall
2019-08-07 16:16     ` Julien Grall
2019-08-09 22:01     ` Stefano Stabellini
2019-08-06 21:49 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 2/7] xen/arm: make process_memory_node a device_tree_node_func Stefano Stabellini
2019-08-07 16:19   ` Julien Grall
2019-08-09 21:08     ` Stefano Stabellini [this message]
2019-08-06 21:49 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 3/7] xen/arm: keep track of reserved-memory regions Stefano Stabellini
2019-08-07 16:33   ` Julien Grall
2019-08-09 22:19     ` Stefano Stabellini
2019-08-09 23:57       ` Julien Grall
2019-08-12 18:10         ` Stefano Stabellini
2019-08-07 16:46   ` Julien Grall
2019-08-09 20:37     ` Stefano Stabellini
2019-08-06 21:49 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 4/7] xen/arm: early_print_info print reserved_mem Stefano Stabellini
2019-08-07 16:36   ` Julien Grall
2019-08-09 20:29     ` Stefano Stabellini
2019-08-06 21:49 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 5/7] xen/arm: handle reserved-memory in consider_modules and dt_unreserved_regions Stefano Stabellini
2019-08-06 21:49 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 6/7] xen/arm: don't iomem_permit_access for reserved-memory regions Stefano Stabellini
2019-08-08 19:19   ` Volodymyr Babchuk
2019-08-09 22:56     ` Stefano Stabellini
2019-08-12 10:43       ` Julien Grall
2019-08-12 17:45         ` Stefano Stabellini
2019-08-06 21:49 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 7/7] xen/arm: add reserved-memory regions to the dom0 memory node Stefano Stabellini
2019-08-07 18:29   ` Julien Grall
2019-08-08 19:11 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 0/7] reserved-memory in dom0 Volodymyr Babchuk
2019-08-08 19:16   ` Stefano Stabellini

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.21.1908091406510.7788@sstabellini-ThinkPad-T480s \
    --to=sstabellini@kernel.org \
    --cc=julien.grall@arm.com \
    --cc=stefanos@xilinx.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).