Hi,
On 22/04/2024 11:24, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 22/04/2024 10:26, Michal Orzel wrote:
On 22/04/2024 10:07, Luca Fancellu wrote:
Hi Michal,
+ for ( cells = reg, i = 0; cells < reg + nr_cells; i++, cells
+= reg_size )
+ {
+ u64 start = dt_read_number(cells, addrcells);
We should no longer use Linux derived types like u64. Use uint64_t.
+ u64 size = dt_read_number(cells + addrcells, sizecells);
+
+ dt_dprintk(" Bank %d: %#"PRIx64"->%#"PRIx64"\n",
+ i, start, start + size);
i is unsigned so the correct format specifier should be %u
Right, should have been more careful when copying the code from above
+void __init shm_mem_node_fill_reg_range(const struct kernel_info
*kinfo,
+ __be32 *reg, int *nr_cells,
+ int addrcells, int sizecells)
+{
+ const struct membanks *mem = &kinfo->shm_mem.common;
+ unsigned int i;
+ __be32 *cells;
+
+ BUG_ON(!nr_cells || !reg);
+
+ cells = ®[*nr_cells];
+ for ( i = 0; i < mem->nr_banks; i++ )
+ {
+ u64 start = mem->bank[i].start;
ditto
Will fix, here paddr_t should be ok isn’t it?
yes
Rest LGTM:
Reviewed-by: Michal Orzel <michal.or...@amd.com>
Thanks, I will send the next one shortly.
I don't think there is a need to respin the whole series just for
these fixes.
You should wait for the committers opinion.
AFAICT, there are multiple changes requested in various line. So I would
rather prefer if this is respinned.
If this is the only patch that requires to change. You could send a new
one in reply-to this patch. I think b4 is clever enough to pick up the
new version in that case.
I was wrong. b4 didn't picked up the new version. Anyway, I have applied
the new patch and send to gitlab for testing. I will merge it once it
passes.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
