On Mon Jun 23, 2025 at 9:44 AM CEST, Jan Beulich wrote:
> 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
Would replacing the last paragraph of the commit message with...
Not a functional change because the whole file is gated by
CONFIG_HAS_DEVICE_TREE_DISCOVERY already. A later patch allows the file to be
usable without it, for which this ifdefs are a prerequisite.
... help?
Cheers,
Alejandro
