Hi Tyrel,
Tyrel Datwyler <tyr...@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> +static bool valid_cpu_drc_index(struct device_node *parent, u32 drc_index)
> +{
> + const __be32 *indexes;
> + int i;
> +
> + if (of_find_property(parent, "ibm,drc-info", NULL))
> + return drc_info_valid_index(parent, drc_index);
> +
> + indexes = of_get_property(parent, "ibm,drc-indexes", NULL);
> + if (!indexes)
> + return false;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < indexes[0]; i++) {
should this be:
for (i = 0; i < be32_to_cpu(indexes[0]); i++) {
?
> + if (be32_to_cpu(indexes[i + 1]) == drc_index)
> + return true;
> + }
> +
> + return false;
> }
It looks like this rewrites valid_cpu_drc_index()'s existing code for
parsing ibm,drc-indexes but I don't see the need for this.
This patch would be easier to review if that were dropped or split out.
>
> static ssize_t dlpar_cpu_add(u32 drc_index)
> @@ -720,8 +756,11 @@ static int dlpar_cpu_remove_by_count(u32 cpus_to_remove)
> static int find_dlpar_cpus_to_add(u32 *cpu_drcs, u32 cpus_to_add)
> {
> struct device_node *parent;
> + struct property *info;
> + const __be32 *indexes;
> int cpus_found = 0;
> - int index, rc;
> + int i, j;
> + u32 drc_index;
>
> parent = of_find_node_by_path("/cpus");
> if (!parent) {
> @@ -730,24 +769,46 @@ static int find_dlpar_cpus_to_add(u32 *cpu_drcs, u32
> cpus_to_add)
> return -1;
> }
>
> - /* Search the ibm,drc-indexes array for possible CPU drcs to
> - * add. Note that the format of the ibm,drc-indexes array is
> - * the number of entries in the array followed by the array
> - * of drc values so we start looking at index = 1.
> - */
> - index = 1;
> - while (cpus_found < cpus_to_add) {
> - u32 drc;
> + info = of_find_property(parent, "ibm,drc-info", NULL);
> + if (info) {
> + struct of_drc_info drc;
> + const __be32 *value;
> + int count;
>
> - rc = of_property_read_u32_index(parent, "ibm,drc-indexes",
> - index++, &drc);
> - if (rc)
> - break;
> + value = of_prop_next_u32(info, NULL, &count);
> + if (value)
> + value++;
>
> - if (dlpar_cpu_exists(parent, drc))
> - continue;
> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> + of_read_drc_info_cell(&info, &value, &drc);
> + if (strncmp(drc.drc_type, "CPU", 3))
> + break;
> +
> + for (j = 0; j < drc.num_sequential_elems; j++) {
> + drc_index = drc.drc_index_start +
> (drc.sequential_inc * j);
> +
> + if (dlpar_cpu_exists(parent, drc_index))
> + continue;
>
> - cpu_drcs[cpus_found++] = drc;
> + cpu_drcs[cpus_found++] = drc_index;
I am failing to see how this loop is limited by the cpus_to_add
parameter as it was before this change. It looks like this will overflow
the cpu_drcs array when cpus_to_add is less than the number of cpus
found.
As an aside I don't understand how the add_by_count()/dlpar_cpu_exists()
algorithm could be correct as it currently stands. It seems to pick the
first X indexes for which a corresponding cpu node is absent, but that
set of indexes does not necessarily match the set that is available to
configure. Something to address separately I suppose.
> + }
> + }
> + } else {
> + indexes = of_get_property(parent, "ibm,drc-indexes", NULL);
> +
> + /* Search the ibm,drc-indexes array for possible CPU drcs to
> + * add. Note that the format of the ibm,drc-indexes array is
> + * the number of entries in the array followed by the array
> + * of drc values so we start looking at index = 1.
> + */
> + for (i = 1; i < indexes[0]; i++) {
> + drc_index = be32_to_cpu(indexes[i]);
> +
> + if (dlpar_cpu_exists(parent, drc_index))
> + continue;
> +
> + cpu_drcs[cpus_found++] = drc_index;
> + }
> }
As above, not sure why this was rewritten, and similar comments as
before apply.
