Hi,
On 16/08/2019 00:36, 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 or if nr_banks is reached. Let
the caller deal with the error.
This sentence does not match the change below. Only 2 of the new error paths are
described here.
Add a printk when device tree parsing fails.
Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefa...@xilinx.com>
---
Changes in v6:
- fix out of space check
- bring back printk when address_cells or size_cells are not properly set
- return -EINVAL in that case (different from reg missing)
- add printk when parsing fails
- return -ENOENT when memory size is 0
Changes in v5:
- return -ENOENT if address_cells or size_cells are not properly set
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 | 29 ++++++++++++++++++-----------
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c b/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
index f1614ef7fc..9dc2c1352d 100644
--- a/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
@@ -130,9 +130,10 @@ int __init device_tree_for_each_node(const void *fdt, int
node,
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;
@@ -145,15 +146,12 @@ static void __init process_memory_node(const void *fdt,
int node,
{
printk("fdt: node `%s': invalid #address-cells or #size-cells",
name);
- return;
+ return -EINVAL;
}
prop = fdt_get_property(fdt, node, "reg", NULL);
if ( !prop )
- {
- printk("fdt: node `%s': missing `reg' property\n", name);
- return;
- }
+ return -ENOENT;
cell = (const __be32 *)prop->data;
banks = fdt32_to_cpu(prop->len) / (reg_cells * sizeof (u32));
@@ -162,11 +160,15 @@ static void __init process_memory_node(const void *fdt,
int node,
{
device_tree_get_reg(&cell, address_cells, size_cells, &start, &size);
if ( !size )
- continue;
+ return -ENOENT;
I don't think we can treat the same way the lack of "regs" properties and a size
of 0.
The former is expected as binding allow you to do it for reserved-memory. The
latter is the user not writing the property correctly. So ignoring the latter
will result to Xen potentially missing some reserved-regions (not great!).
So, similar to #address-cells/#size-cells discussion, we should return an error
we are able to distinguish. Probably -EINVAL.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel