Hi Stefano,
Stefano Stabellini writes:
> Change the signature of process_memory_node to match
> device_tree_node_func. Thanks to this change, the next patch will be
> able to use device_tree_for_each_node to call process_memory_node on all
> the children of a provided node.
>
> Return error if there is no reg property or if nr_banks is reached. Let
> the caller deal with the error.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefa...@xilinx.com>
> ---
> Changes in v5:
> - return -ENOENT if address_cells or size_cells are not properly set
>
> Changes in v4:
> - return error if there is no reg propery, remove printk
> - return error if nr_banks is reached
>
> Changes in v3:
> - improve commit message
> - check return value of process_memory_node
>
> Changes in v2:
> - new
> ---
> xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c | 29 +++++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c b/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
> index a872ea57d6..590b14304c 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
> @@ -125,9 +125,10 @@ int __init device_tree_for_each_node(const void *fdt,
> int node,
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static void __init process_memory_node(const void *fdt, int node,
> - const char *name,
> - u32 address_cells, u32 size_cells)
> +static int __init process_memory_node(const void *fdt, int node,
> + const char *name, int depth,
> + u32 address_cells, u32 size_cells,
> + void *data)
> {
> const struct fdt_property *prop;
> int i;
> @@ -137,18 +138,11 @@ static void __init process_memory_node(const void *fdt,
> int node,
> u32 reg_cells = address_cells + size_cells;
>
> if ( address_cells < 1 || size_cells < 1 )
> - {
> - printk("fdt: node `%s': invalid #address-cells or #size-cells",
> - name);
> - return;
> - }
> + return -ENOENT;
>
> prop = fdt_get_property(fdt, node, "reg", NULL);
> if ( !prop )
> - {
> - printk("fdt: node `%s': missing `reg' property\n", name);
> - return;
> - }
> + return -ENOENT;
>
> cell = (const __be32 *)prop->data;
> banks = fdt32_to_cpu(prop->len) / (reg_cells * sizeof (u32));
> @@ -162,6 +156,10 @@ static void __init process_memory_node(const void *fdt,
> int node,
> bootinfo.mem.bank[bootinfo.mem.nr_banks].size = size;
> bootinfo.mem.nr_banks++;
> }
> +
> + if ( bootinfo.mem.nr_banks == NR_MEM_BANKS )
> + return -ENOSPC;
Are you sure that this logic is correct?
For example, if NR_MEM_BANKS is 1, and we have exactly one memory node
in device tree, this function will fail. But it should not. I think you
want this condition: bootinfo.mem.nr_banks > NR_MEM_BANKS
> + return 0;
> }
>
> static void __init process_multiboot_node(const void *fdt, int node,
> @@ -293,15 +291,18 @@ static int __init early_scan_node(const void *fdt,
> u32 address_cells, u32 size_cells,
> void *data)
> {
> + int rc = 0;
> +
> if ( device_tree_node_matches(fdt, node, "memory") )
> - process_memory_node(fdt, node, name, address_cells, size_cells);
> + rc = process_memory_node(fdt, node, name, depth,
> + address_cells, size_cells, NULL);
> else if ( depth <= 3 && (device_tree_node_compatible(fdt, node,
> "xen,multiboot-module" ) ||
> device_tree_node_compatible(fdt, node, "multiboot,module" )))
> process_multiboot_node(fdt, node, name, address_cells, size_cells);
> else if ( depth == 1 && device_tree_node_matches(fdt, node, "chosen") )
> process_chosen_node(fdt, node, name, address_cells, size_cells);
>
> - return 0;
> + return rc;
> }
>
> static void __init early_print_info(void)
--
Volodymyr Babchuk at EPAM
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
