Hi Jens and Simon,
čt 23. 8. 2018 v 12:43 odesílatel Jens Wiklander
<jens.wiklan...@linaro.org> napsal:
>
> Just as /chosen may contain devices /firmware may contain devices, scan
> for devices under /firmware too.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklan...@linaro.org>
> ---
> drivers/core/root.c | 15 ++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/core/root.c b/drivers/core/root.c
> index 72bcc7d7f2a3..0dca507e1187 100644
> --- a/drivers/core/root.c
> +++ b/drivers/core/root.c
> @@ -265,9 +265,15 @@ static int dm_scan_fdt_node(struct udevice *parent,
> const void *blob,
> for (offset = fdt_first_subnode(blob, offset);
> offset > 0;
> offset = fdt_next_subnode(blob, offset)) {
> - /* "chosen" node isn't a device itself but may contain some:
> */
> - if (!strcmp(fdt_get_name(blob, offset, NULL), "chosen")) {
> - pr_debug("parsing subnodes of \"chosen\"\n");
> + const char *node_name = fdt_get_name(blob, offset, NULL);
> +
> + /*
> + * The "chosen" and "firmware" nodes aren't devices
> + * themselves but may contain some:
> + */
> + if (!strcmp(node_name, "chosen") ||
> + !strcmp(node_name, "firmware")) {
> + pr_debug("parsing subnodes of \"%s\"\n", node_name);
>
> err = dm_scan_fdt_node(parent, blob, offset,
> pre_reloc_only);
> @@ -286,8 +292,7 @@ static int dm_scan_fdt_node(struct udevice *parent, const
> void *blob,
> err = lists_bind_fdt(parent, offset_to_ofnode(offset), NULL);
> if (err && !ret) {
> ret = err;
> - debug("%s: ret=%d\n", fdt_get_name(blob, offset,
> NULL),
> - ret);
> + debug("%s: ret=%d\n", node_name, ret);
> }
> }
>
> --
> 2.17.1
>
I have debug issue which I see on ZynqMP that firmware nodes are
listed in dm tree twice.
I was caused by this patch.
firmware 1 [ + ] zynqmp-firmware |-- zynqmp-firmware
firmware 2 [ + ] zynqmp-power | `-- zynqmp-power
....
firmware 3 [ ] zynqmp-firmware `-- zynqmp-firmware
firmware 4 [ ] zynqmp-power `-- zynqmp-power
On ZynqMP firmware node needs to be populated early that's why
u-boot,dm-pre-reloc flag is used.
That's why I am curious how to fix this. Revert this patch or add
flags to Jens case or do more checking to avoid creating duplicated
entries of nodes present in firmware node.
Thanks,
Michal
--
Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng), OpenPGP -> KeyID: FE3D1F91
w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854
Maintainer of Linux kernel - Xilinx Microblaze
Maintainer of Linux kernel - Xilinx Zynq ARM and ZynqMP ARM64 SoCs
U-Boot custodian - Xilinx Microblaze/Zynq/ZynqMP/Versal SoCs
