Hello All,
On 10/29/2015 06:15 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Stefan,
On 28 October 2015 at 08:37, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marc...@samsung.com> wrote:
Commit: dm: core: Enable optional use of fdt_translate_address()
Enables use of this function as default, but after this it's not
possible to get dev address for the case in which: '#size-cells == 0'
This causes errors when getting address for some GPIOs, for which
the '#size-cells' is set to 0.
Example error:
'__of_translate_address: Bad cell count for gpx0'
Allowing for that case by modifying the macro 'OF_CHECK_COUNTS',
(called from )__of_translate_address(), fixes the issue.
Now, this macro doesn't check, that '#size-cells' is greater than 0.
This is possible from the specification point of view, but I'm not sure
that it doesn't introduce a regression for other configs.
Please test and share the results.
Tested-on: Odroid U3, Odroid X2, Odroid XU3, Sandbox.
Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marc...@samsung.com>
Cc: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com>
Cc: Lukasz Majewski <l.majew...@samsung.com>
Cc: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.ch...@samsung.com>
Cc: Stefan Roese <s...@denx.de>
Cc: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
Cc: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com>
Cc: Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de>
---
common/fdt_support.c | 7 +++----
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/common/fdt_support.c b/common/fdt_support.c
index f86365e..5f808cc 100644
--- a/common/fdt_support.c
+++ b/common/fdt_support.c
@@ -946,8 +946,7 @@ void fdt_del_node_and_alias(void *blob, const char *alias)
/* Max address size we deal with */
#define OF_MAX_ADDR_CELLS 4
#define OF_BAD_ADDR ((u64)-1)
-#define OF_CHECK_COUNTS(na, ns) ((na) > 0 && (na) <= OF_MAX_ADDR_CELLS
&& \
- (ns) > 0)
+#define OF_CHECK_COUNTS(na) ((na) > 0 && (na) <= OF_MAX_ADDR_CELLS)
/* Debug utility */
#ifdef DEBUG
@@ -1115,7 +1114,7 @@ static u64 __of_translate_address(void *blob, int
node_offset, const fdt32_t *in
/* Cound address cells & copy address locally */
bus->count_cells(blob, parent, &na, &ns);
- if (!OF_CHECK_COUNTS(na, ns)) {
+ if (!OF_CHECK_COUNTS(na)) {
This seems to conflict with the comment at the top of this function:
* Note: We consider that crossing any level with #size-cells == 0 to mean
* that translation is impossible (that is we are not dealing with a value
* that can be mapped to a cpu physical address). This is not really specified
* that way, but this is traditionally the way IBM at least do things
What should we do here?
Is that commit acceptable? I would like send V2 with removing the above
comment.
Best regards,
--
Przemyslaw Marczak
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
p.marc...@samsung.com
printf("%s: Bad cell count for %s\n", __FUNCTION__,
fdt_get_name(blob, node_offset, NULL));
goto bail;
@@ -1142,7 +1141,7 @@ static u64 __of_translate_address(void *blob, int
node_offset, const fdt32_t *in
/* Get new parent bus and counts */
pbus = &of_busses[0];
pbus->count_cells(blob, parent, &pna, &pns);
- if (!OF_CHECK_COUNTS(pna, pns)) {
+ if (!OF_CHECK_COUNTS(pna)) {
printf("%s: Bad cell count for %s\n", __FUNCTION__,
fdt_get_name(blob, node_offset, NULL));
break;
--
1.9.1
Regards,
Simon
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
