On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 09:02:25AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Caleb,
>
> On Fri, 6 Sept 2024 at 03:31, Caleb Connolly <caleb.conno...@linaro.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 03/09/2024 20:14, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 31, 2024 at 05:46:19PM +0100, Caleb Connolly wrote:
> > >
> > >> When using the FDT command to inspect an arbitrary FDT in memory, it
> > >> will always be necessary to explicitly set the FDT address. However it
> > >> is also quite likely that the command is being used to inspect U-Boot's
> > >> own FDT. Simplify that common workflow of running "fdt addr -c" to get
> > >> the control address and set it by just making $fdtcontroladdr the
> > >> default FDT if there isn't one.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Caleb Connolly <caleb.conno...@linaro.org>
> > >> ---
> > >> cmd/fdt.c | 9 +++++++++
> > >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/cmd/fdt.c b/cmd/fdt.c
> > >> index d16b141ce32d..8909706e2483 100644
> > >> --- a/cmd/fdt.c
> > >> +++ b/cmd/fdt.c
> > >> @@ -276,8 +276,17 @@ static int do_fdt(struct cmd_tbl *cmdtp, int flag,
> > >> int argc, char *const argv[])
> > >>
> > >> return CMD_RET_SUCCESS;
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> + /* Try using U-Boot's FDT by default */
> > >> + if (!working_fdt) {
> > >> + struct fdt_header *addr;
> > >> +
> > >> + addr = (void *)env_get_hex("fdtcontroladdr", 0);
> > >> + if (addr && fdt_check_header(&addr))
> > >> + set_working_fdt_addr((phys_addr_t)addr);
> > >> + }
> > >> +
> > >> if (!working_fdt) {
> > >> puts("No FDT memory address configured. Please configure\n"
> > >> "the FDT address via \"fdt addr <address>\" command.\n"
> > >> "Aborting!\n");
> > >
> > > Setting aside the behavior change (which I am thinking about), this
> > > makes the next check of !working_fdt dead code which should be removed.
> >
> > I wasn't sure if we could safely assume that fdtcontroladdr always
> > points to a valid FDT, if that's true then yes this can be dropped.
>
> $ ./tools/qconfig.py -f ~OF_CONTROL
> 11 matches
> integratorap_cm720t integratorap_cm920t integratorap_cm926ejs
> integratorap_cm946es integratorcp_cm1136 integratorcp_cm920t
> integratorcp_cm926ejs integratorcp_cm946es mx6memcal work_92105 xtfpga
>
> So yes, there are boards where it would not be set.Well, mx6memcal is special. Perhaps all of those integrator boards need dropping? And I'm not sure what's going on with xtfpga... -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
