Re: [PATCH 2/2] memory: of_fixup: adapt to new memory layout
On 19-02-12 09:56, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 09:45:25AM +0100, Marco Felsch wrote:
> > Hi Sascha,
> >
> > On 19-02-12 09:03, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 05:20:13PM +0100, Marco Felsch wrote:
> > > > Since kernel 4.16 the memory nodes got a @ suffix so the fixup
> > > > won't work correctly anymore, because instead of adapting the extisting
> > > > one it creates a new node.
> > > >
> > > > To be compatible with the old and new layout delete the found memory
> > > > node and create a new one. The new node follows the new @ style.
> > > >
> > > > The patch also renames the node element to root to make it more clear.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Marco Felsch
> > > > ---
> > > > common/memory.c | 24 ++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/common/memory.c b/common/memory.c
> > > > index 00fa7c50ff..5402acab8e 100644
> > > > --- a/common/memory.c
> > > > +++ b/common/memory.c
> > > > @@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ int memory_bank_first_find_space(resource_size_t
> > > > *retstart,
> > > >
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_OFTREE
> > > >
> > > > -static int of_memory_fixup(struct device_node *node, void *unused)
> > > > +static int of_memory_fixup(struct device_node *root, void *unused)
> > > > {
> > > > struct memory_bank *bank;
> > > > int err;
> > > > @@ -232,7 +232,23 @@ static int of_memory_fixup(struct device_node
> > > > *node, void *unused)
> > > > struct device_node *memnode;
> > > > u8 tmp[16 * 16]; /* Up to 64-bit address + 64-bit size */
> > > >
> > > > - memnode = of_create_node(node, "/memory");
> > > > + /*
> > > > +* Since kernel 4.16 the memory node got a @ suffix. To
> > > > support
> > > > +* the old and the new style delete any found memory node and
> > > > add it
> > > > +* again to be sure that the memory node exists only once. It
> > > > shouldn't
> > > > +* bother older kernels if the memory node has this suffix so
> > > > adding it
> > > > +* following the new style.
> > > > +*/
> > > > +
> > > > + memnode = of_find_node_by_name(root, "memory");
> > >
> > > We don't need this as the /memory node must have device_type = memory.
> >
> > Okay, tought about the old devicetrees where the QA wasn't that good. I
> > will drop this.
> >
> > >
> > > > + if (!memnode)
> > > > + memnode = of_find_node_by_type(root, "memory");
> > >
> > > You shouldn't assume that there's only one /memory node. There can be
> > > multiple.
> >
> > Sure.. damn, checked only a few devicetree's where multiple banks are
> > mapped to the reg property. I will change this.
> >
> > > The /memory node must be a direct child of the root node, so it's
> > > unnecessary to traverse the whole tree using of_find_node_by_type().
> > > Something like for_each_child_of_node_safe(root, tmp, np) fits better.
> >
> > Okay.
> >
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > + if (memnode)
> > > > + of_delete_node(memnode);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* At this moment we don't know the val */
> > > > + memnode = of_create_node(root, "/memory");
> > > > if (!memnode)
> > > > return -ENOMEM;
> > > >
> > > > @@ -256,6 +272,10 @@ static int of_memory_fixup(struct device_node
> > > > *node, void *unused)
> > > > return err;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > + /* now adapt the node name */
> > > > + of_rename_node(memnode, basprintf("memory@%llx",
> > > > +of_read_number((u32 *)tmp,
> > > > addr_cell_len)));
> > >
> > > It's also allowed to create one /memory node per memory bank. Maybe
> > > that's more straightforward to implement.
> >
> > Is it wrong to adapt the name later? As specified by DT-Spec [1], the
> > @ should be set to the first address.
>
> What do they mean with the first address? Currently the memory banks in
> barebox are not sorted, so you are setting @reg indeed to the first
> address, but this is not currently necessarily the lowest one.
By first I mean the lowest, sorry. Oh I tought the banks are sorted, now
I got you. In that case it is easier to add one /memory node per memory
bank, as you mentoined. I will change that in my v2.
Regards,
Marco
>
> Sascha
>
___
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
Re: [PATCH 2/2] memory: of_fixup: adapt to new memory layout
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 09:45:25AM +0100, Marco Felsch wrote:
> Hi Sascha,
>
> On 19-02-12 09:03, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 05:20:13PM +0100, Marco Felsch wrote:
> > > Since kernel 4.16 the memory nodes got a @ suffix so the fixup
> > > won't work correctly anymore, because instead of adapting the extisting
> > > one it creates a new node.
> > >
> > > To be compatible with the old and new layout delete the found memory
> > > node and create a new one. The new node follows the new @ style.
> > >
> > > The patch also renames the node element to root to make it more clear.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Marco Felsch
> > > ---
> > > common/memory.c | 24 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/common/memory.c b/common/memory.c
> > > index 00fa7c50ff..5402acab8e 100644
> > > --- a/common/memory.c
> > > +++ b/common/memory.c
> > > @@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ int memory_bank_first_find_space(resource_size_t
> > > *retstart,
> > >
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_OFTREE
> > >
> > > -static int of_memory_fixup(struct device_node *node, void *unused)
> > > +static int of_memory_fixup(struct device_node *root, void *unused)
> > > {
> > > struct memory_bank *bank;
> > > int err;
> > > @@ -232,7 +232,23 @@ static int of_memory_fixup(struct device_node *node,
> > > void *unused)
> > > struct device_node *memnode;
> > > u8 tmp[16 * 16]; /* Up to 64-bit address + 64-bit size */
> > >
> > > - memnode = of_create_node(node, "/memory");
> > > + /*
> > > + * Since kernel 4.16 the memory node got a @ suffix. To support
> > > + * the old and the new style delete any found memory node and add it
> > > + * again to be sure that the memory node exists only once. It shouldn't
> > > + * bother older kernels if the memory node has this suffix so adding it
> > > + * following the new style.
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > + memnode = of_find_node_by_name(root, "memory");
> >
> > We don't need this as the /memory node must have device_type = memory.
>
> Okay, tought about the old devicetrees where the QA wasn't that good. I
> will drop this.
>
> >
> > > + if (!memnode)
> > > + memnode = of_find_node_by_type(root, "memory");
> >
> > You shouldn't assume that there's only one /memory node. There can be
> > multiple.
>
> Sure.. damn, checked only a few devicetree's where multiple banks are
> mapped to the reg property. I will change this.
>
> > The /memory node must be a direct child of the root node, so it's
> > unnecessary to traverse the whole tree using of_find_node_by_type().
> > Something like for_each_child_of_node_safe(root, tmp, np) fits better.
>
> Okay.
>
> >
> > > +
> > > + if (memnode)
> > > + of_delete_node(memnode);
> > > +
> > > + /* At this moment we don't know the val */
> > > + memnode = of_create_node(root, "/memory");
> > > if (!memnode)
> > > return -ENOMEM;
> > >
> > > @@ -256,6 +272,10 @@ static int of_memory_fixup(struct device_node *node,
> > > void *unused)
> > > return err;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + /* now adapt the node name */
> > > + of_rename_node(memnode, basprintf("memory@%llx",
> > > + of_read_number((u32 *)tmp, addr_cell_len)));
> >
> > It's also allowed to create one /memory node per memory bank. Maybe
> > that's more straightforward to implement.
>
> Is it wrong to adapt the name later? As specified by DT-Spec [1], the
> @ should be set to the first address.
What do they mean with the first address? Currently the memory banks in
barebox are not sorted, so you are setting @reg indeed to the first
address, but this is not currently necessarily the lowest one.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0|
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917- |
___
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
Re: [PATCH 2/2] memory: of_fixup: adapt to new memory layout
Hi Sascha,
On 19-02-12 09:03, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 05:20:13PM +0100, Marco Felsch wrote:
> > Since kernel 4.16 the memory nodes got a @ suffix so the fixup
> > won't work correctly anymore, because instead of adapting the extisting
> > one it creates a new node.
> >
> > To be compatible with the old and new layout delete the found memory
> > node and create a new one. The new node follows the new @ style.
> >
> > The patch also renames the node element to root to make it more clear.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marco Felsch
> > ---
> > common/memory.c | 24 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/common/memory.c b/common/memory.c
> > index 00fa7c50ff..5402acab8e 100644
> > --- a/common/memory.c
> > +++ b/common/memory.c
> > @@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ int memory_bank_first_find_space(resource_size_t
> > *retstart,
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_OFTREE
> >
> > -static int of_memory_fixup(struct device_node *node, void *unused)
> > +static int of_memory_fixup(struct device_node *root, void *unused)
> > {
> > struct memory_bank *bank;
> > int err;
> > @@ -232,7 +232,23 @@ static int of_memory_fixup(struct device_node *node,
> > void *unused)
> > struct device_node *memnode;
> > u8 tmp[16 * 16]; /* Up to 64-bit address + 64-bit size */
> >
> > - memnode = of_create_node(node, "/memory");
> > + /*
> > +* Since kernel 4.16 the memory node got a @ suffix. To support
> > +* the old and the new style delete any found memory node and add it
> > +* again to be sure that the memory node exists only once. It shouldn't
> > +* bother older kernels if the memory node has this suffix so adding it
> > +* following the new style.
> > +*/
> > +
> > + memnode = of_find_node_by_name(root, "memory");
>
> We don't need this as the /memory node must have device_type = memory.
Okay, tought about the old devicetrees where the QA wasn't that good. I
will drop this.
>
> > + if (!memnode)
> > + memnode = of_find_node_by_type(root, "memory");
>
> You shouldn't assume that there's only one /memory node. There can be
> multiple.
Sure.. damn, checked only a few devicetree's where multiple banks are
mapped to the reg property. I will change this.
> The /memory node must be a direct child of the root node, so it's
> unnecessary to traverse the whole tree using of_find_node_by_type().
> Something like for_each_child_of_node_safe(root, tmp, np) fits better.
Okay.
>
> > +
> > + if (memnode)
> > + of_delete_node(memnode);
> > +
> > + /* At this moment we don't know the val */
> > + memnode = of_create_node(root, "/memory");
> > if (!memnode)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > @@ -256,6 +272,10 @@ static int of_memory_fixup(struct device_node *node,
> > void *unused)
> > return err;
> > }
> >
> > + /* now adapt the node name */
> > + of_rename_node(memnode, basprintf("memory@%llx",
> > +of_read_number((u32 *)tmp, addr_cell_len)));
>
> It's also allowed to create one /memory node per memory bank. Maybe
> that's more straightforward to implement.
Is it wrong to adapt the name later? As specified by DT-Spec [1], the
@ should be set to the first address.
[1]
https://github.com/devicetree-org/devicetree-specification/releases/tag/v0.2,
Chapter 2.2.1
Regards,
Marco
>
> Sascha
>
> --
> Pengutronix e.K. | |
> Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
> Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0|
> Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917- |
>
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0|
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917- |
___
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
Re: [PATCH 2/2] memory: of_fixup: adapt to new memory layout
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 05:20:13PM +0100, Marco Felsch wrote:
> Since kernel 4.16 the memory nodes got a @ suffix so the fixup
> won't work correctly anymore, because instead of adapting the extisting
> one it creates a new node.
>
> To be compatible with the old and new layout delete the found memory
> node and create a new one. The new node follows the new @ style.
>
> The patch also renames the node element to root to make it more clear.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marco Felsch
> ---
> common/memory.c | 24 ++--
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/common/memory.c b/common/memory.c
> index 00fa7c50ff..5402acab8e 100644
> --- a/common/memory.c
> +++ b/common/memory.c
> @@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ int memory_bank_first_find_space(resource_size_t
> *retstart,
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_OFTREE
>
> -static int of_memory_fixup(struct device_node *node, void *unused)
> +static int of_memory_fixup(struct device_node *root, void *unused)
> {
> struct memory_bank *bank;
> int err;
> @@ -232,7 +232,23 @@ static int of_memory_fixup(struct device_node *node,
> void *unused)
> struct device_node *memnode;
> u8 tmp[16 * 16]; /* Up to 64-bit address + 64-bit size */
>
> - memnode = of_create_node(node, "/memory");
> + /*
> + * Since kernel 4.16 the memory node got a @ suffix. To support
> + * the old and the new style delete any found memory node and add it
> + * again to be sure that the memory node exists only once. It shouldn't
> + * bother older kernels if the memory node has this suffix so adding it
> + * following the new style.
> + */
> +
> + memnode = of_find_node_by_name(root, "memory");
We don't need this as the /memory node must have device_type = memory.
> + if (!memnode)
> + memnode = of_find_node_by_type(root, "memory");
You shouldn't assume that there's only one /memory node. There can be
multiple.
The /memory node must be a direct child of the root node, so it's
unnecessary to traverse the whole tree using of_find_node_by_type().
Something like for_each_child_of_node_safe(root, tmp, np) fits better.
> +
> + if (memnode)
> + of_delete_node(memnode);
> +
> + /* At this moment we don't know the val */
> + memnode = of_create_node(root, "/memory");
> if (!memnode)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> @@ -256,6 +272,10 @@ static int of_memory_fixup(struct device_node *node,
> void *unused)
> return err;
> }
>
> + /* now adapt the node name */
> + of_rename_node(memnode, basprintf("memory@%llx",
> + of_read_number((u32 *)tmp, addr_cell_len)));
It's also allowed to create one /memory node per memory bank. Maybe
that's more straightforward to implement.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0|
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917- |
___
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
[PATCH 2/2] memory: of_fixup: adapt to new memory layout
Since kernel 4.16 the memory nodes got a @ suffix so the fixup
won't work correctly anymore, because instead of adapting the extisting
one it creates a new node.
To be compatible with the old and new layout delete the found memory
node and create a new one. The new node follows the new @ style.
The patch also renames the node element to root to make it more clear.
Signed-off-by: Marco Felsch
---
common/memory.c | 24 ++--
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/common/memory.c b/common/memory.c
index 00fa7c50ff..5402acab8e 100644
--- a/common/memory.c
+++ b/common/memory.c
@@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ int memory_bank_first_find_space(resource_size_t *retstart,
#ifdef CONFIG_OFTREE
-static int of_memory_fixup(struct device_node *node, void *unused)
+static int of_memory_fixup(struct device_node *root, void *unused)
{
struct memory_bank *bank;
int err;
@@ -232,7 +232,23 @@ static int of_memory_fixup(struct device_node *node, void
*unused)
struct device_node *memnode;
u8 tmp[16 * 16]; /* Up to 64-bit address + 64-bit size */
- memnode = of_create_node(node, "/memory");
+ /*
+* Since kernel 4.16 the memory node got a @ suffix. To support
+* the old and the new style delete any found memory node and add it
+* again to be sure that the memory node exists only once. It shouldn't
+* bother older kernels if the memory node has this suffix so adding it
+* following the new style.
+*/
+
+ memnode = of_find_node_by_name(root, "memory");
+ if (!memnode)
+ memnode = of_find_node_by_type(root, "memory");
+
+ if (memnode)
+ of_delete_node(memnode);
+
+ /* At this moment we don't know the val */
+ memnode = of_create_node(root, "/memory");
if (!memnode)
return -ENOMEM;
@@ -256,6 +272,10 @@ static int of_memory_fixup(struct device_node *node, void
*unused)
return err;
}
+ /* now adapt the node name */
+ of_rename_node(memnode, basprintf("memory@%llx",
+of_read_number((u32 *)tmp, addr_cell_len)));
+
return 0;
}
--
2.20.1
___
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
