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