On 20.06.2025 20:28, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> device-tree.c stops requiring CONFIG_HAS_DEVICE_TREE_DISCOVERY and may
> function with DOM0LESS_BOOT.
>
> Without this, there's a clash with x86's definition of device_t. Because
> x86 doesn't discover devices in the DT it can simply skip the code
> to do so during the unflattening phase.
>
> Not a functional change on architectures that currently use these files,
> as they already select CONFIG_HAS_DEVICE_TREE_DISCOVERY.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <agarc...@amd.com>
> ---
> xen/common/device-tree/device-tree.c | 2 ++
> xen/include/xen/device_tree.h | 4 ++++
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/xen/common/device-tree/device-tree.c
> b/xen/common/device-tree/device-tree.c
> index 725ff71646..741e2ce585 100644
> --- a/xen/common/device-tree/device-tree.c
> +++ b/xen/common/device-tree/device-tree.c
> @@ -2029,9 +2029,11 @@ static unsigned long unflatten_dt_node(const void *fdt,
> ((char *)pp->value)[sz - 1] = 0;
> dt_dprintk("fixed up name for %s -> %s\n", pathp,
> (char *)pp->value);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_DEVICE_TREE_DISCOVERY
> /* Generic device initialization */
> np->dev.type = DEV_DT;
> np->dev.of_node = np;
> +#endif /* CONFIG_HAS_DEVICE_TREE_DISCOVERY */
> }
> }
Without something said to that effect in the description, this contradicts
obj-$(CONFIG_HAS_DEVICE_TREE_DISCOVERY) += device-tree/
that the previous patch put in place, and that only the subsequent patch
will further change.
Jan
