Hi Ian, On 31/03/15 12:43, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 19:29 +0000, Julien Grall wrote: >> The partial device tree may contains phandle. The Device Tree Compiler >> tends to allocate the phandle from 1. >> >> Reserve the ID 65000 for the GIC phandle. I think we can safely assume >> that the partial device tree will never contain a such ID. >> >> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.gr...@linaro.org> >> Cc: Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com> >> Cc: Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com> >> >> --- >> It's not easily possible to track the maximum phandle in the partial >> device tree. >> >> We would need to parse it twice: one for looking the maximum >> phandle, and one for copying the nodes. This is because we have to >> know the phandle of the GIC when we create the properties of the >> root. > > Or you could fill it in post-hoc like we do with e.g. the initramfs > location?
That would work. I will see for a follow-up of this patch series. > Anyway, this'll do for now: > Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.ampb...@citrix.com> > >> >> As the phandle is encoded an unsigned 32 bits, I could use an higher >> value. Though, having 65000 phandle is already a lot... >> >> TODO: If it's necessary, I can check if the value has been used by >> another phandle in the device tree. > > If that's easy enough to add then yes please, but if it is complex then > don't bother. I would prefer to postpone and replace with a follow-up to allocate dynamically the phandle. Regards, -- Julien Grall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
