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

Reply via email to