V/r,
Daniel P. Smith
Apertus Solutions, LLC
On 4/16/25 09:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.04.2025 15:37, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
On 4/10/25 08:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.04.2025 18:07, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
@@ -212,6 +213,39 @@ static int __init process_domain_node(
else
printk("PV\n");
}
+ else if ( strncmp(prop_name, "memory", name_len) == 0 )
+ {
+ uint64_t kb;
+ if ( fdt_prop_as_u64(prop, &kb) != 0 )
Nit (you know what I have to say here, and again below.)
+ {
+ printk(" failed processing memory for domain %s\n", name);
+ return -EINVAL;
Any reason to override fdt_prop_as_u64()'s return value here?
IMHO this should be a function that libfdt should provide, but altering
libftd directly would make uprev'ing it challenging. The least I could
do is make the function behave like the rest of libfdt's helper functions.
How's this related to the question that I raised? I didn't question the
function, but a particular aspect of the specific use that is being made
of it here.
Your question was, "Any reason to override fdt_prop_as_u64()'s return
value here?"
And my answer was, I copied libfdt's behavior for its helper functions.
IOW, to have the helper behave like libfdt's other helper functions.
v/r,
dps
