Frank,
# I haven't reply to your comments.
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 02:13:58PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 09/28/18 06:44, Rob Herring wrote:
> > +David Gibson
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 1:48 AM AKASHI Takahiro
> > <takahiro.akashi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> These functions will be used later to handle kexec-specific properties
> >> in arm64's kexec_file implementation.
>
> As I requested in version 14:
>
> The intent of the helper functions is related to properties whose values are
> tuples of the same format as the "reg" property of the "/memory" nodes. For
> example, the "linux,usable-memory-range" and "linux,elfcoredhr" properties of
> the "/chosen" node.
>
> The patch header and the function names should be updated to reflect this intent.
I agree regarding the patch header.
>
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> ---
>
> Missing list of changes since version 14.
Sorry for the inconvenience, but a whole change list goes into
the cover letter, not individual patches.
>
> >> drivers/of/fdt.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> include/linux/of_fdt.h | 4 +++
> >> 2 files changed, 60 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> >> index 800ad252cf9c..c65c31562ccb 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> >> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
> >> #include <linux/debugfs.h>
> >> #include <linux/serial_core.h>
> >> #include <linux/sysfs.h>
> >> +#include <linux/types.h>
> >>
> >> #include <asm/setup.h> /* for COMMAND_LINE_SIZE */
> >> #include <asm/page.h>
> >> @@ -1323,3 +1324,58 @@ late_initcall(of_fdt_raw_init);
> >> #endif
> >>
> >> #endif /* CONFIG_OF_EARLY_FLATTREE */
>
> In v14 I requested:
>
> Please add comment:
>
> /* helper functions for arm64 kexec */
Okay.
>
> >> +
> >> +#define FDT_ALIGN(x, a) (((x) + (a) - 1) & ~((a) - 1))
> >> +#define FDT_TAGALIGN(x) (FDT_ALIGN((x), FDT_TAGSIZE))
> >> +
> >> +int fdt_prop_len(const char *prop_name, int len)
>
> In v14, I requested:
>
> Please rename as fdt_len_added_prop()
Anyhow, I will drop this function, preferring to new
fdt_[address|size]_cells().
> I'm not really happy with my suggested name, but do not have a
> better one yet. As Rob notes, maybe David G will have a helpful
> comment.
>
> >> +{
> >> + return (strlen(prop_name) + 1) +
> >> + sizeof(struct fdt_property) +
> >> + FDT_TAGALIGN(len);
> >
> > Looks like you are using this to calculate how much space you need to
> > allocate in addition to the current DTB for a couple of new or
> > replaced properties. I'm not sure that this calculation is completely
> > accurate. And it is strange there doesn't seem to be any libfdt
> > function for this already. It would be simpler to just add some fixed
> > additional amount.
> >
> > Maybe David G has comments on this?
I'm not quit sure why it's not that accurate, but as I said in a reply to
David's comment, I will take your suggestion.
> >> +}
> >> +
> >
> > The rest of this should go in drivers/of/fdt_address.c. Ultimately, it
> > should go into libfdt, but I'm fine with having it in the kernel for
> > now.
> >
> >> +static void fill_property(void *buf, u64 val64, int cells)
>
> In v14 I requested:
>
> Please rename as cpu64_to_fdt_cells()
I don't mind, but this function may be dropped if Rob sticks to
u-boot's fdt_pack_reg() over my fdt_setprop_reg().
>
> >> +{
> >> + __be32 val32;
> >> +
> >> + while (cells) {
> >> + val32 = cpu_to_fdt32((val64 >> (32 * (--cells))) & U32_MAX);
> >> + memcpy(buf, &val32, sizeof(val32));
> >> + buf += sizeof(val32);
> >
> > This is kind of hard to read. I would copy u-boot's fdt_pack_reg function.
> >
> > BTW, for purposes of moving to libfdt, we'll need the authors'
> > (Masahiro Yamada and Hans de Goede) permission to dual license.
> >
> >> + }
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +int fdt_setprop_reg(void *fdt, int nodeoffset, const char *name,
> >> + u64 addr, u64 size)
> >> +{
> >> + int addr_cells, size_cells;
>
> unsigned
fdt_[address|size]_cell() returns an int.
>
> >> + char buf[sizeof(__be32) * 2 * 2];
> >> + /* assume dt_root_[addr|size]_cells <= 2 */
> >> + void *prop;
> >> + size_t buf_size;
> >> +
> >> + addr_cells = fdt_address_cells(fdt, 0);
> >> + if (addr_cells < 0)
> >> + return addr_cells;
> >> + size_cells = fdt_size_cells(fdt, 0);
> >> + if (size_cells < 0)
> >> + return size_cells;
> >> +
> >> + /* if *_cells >= 2, cells can hold 64-bit values anyway */
> >> + if ((addr_cells == 1) && (addr > U32_MAX))
> >> + return -FDT_ERR_BADVALUE;
> >> +
> >> + if ((size_cells == 1) && (size > U32_MAX))
> >> + return -FDT_ERR_BADVALUE;
>
> In v14 I requested:
>
> Should also check that base + size does not wrap around.
Okay, I will start discussion, as you have suggested, in devicetree-spec ML.
Thanks,
-Takahiro Akashi
>
> >> +
> >> + buf_size = (addr_cells + size_cells) * sizeof(u32);
> >> + prop = buf;
> >> +
> >> + fill_property(prop, addr, addr_cells);
> >> + prop += addr_cells * sizeof(u32);
> >> +
> >> + fill_property(prop, size, size_cells);
> >> +
> >> + return fdt_setprop(fdt, nodeoffset, name, buf, buf_size);
> >> +}
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/of_fdt.h b/include/linux/of_fdt.h
> >> index b9cd9ebdf9b9..842af6ea92ea 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/of_fdt.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/of_fdt.h
> >> @@ -108,5 +108,9 @@ static inline void unflatten_device_tree(void) {}
> >> static inline void unflatten_and_copy_device_tree(void) {}
> >> #endif /* CONFIG_OF_EARLY_FLATTREE */
> >>
> >> +int fdt_prop_len(const char *prop_name, int len);
> >> +int fdt_setprop_reg(void *fdt, int nodeoffset, const char *name,
> >> + u64 addr, u64 size);
> >> +
> >> #endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
> >> #endif /* _LINUX_OF_FDT_H */
> >> --
> >> 2.19.0
> >>
> >
>
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
