Re: [GIT PULL] of: overlay: validation checks, subsequent fixes for v20 -- correction: v4.20

2019-02-11 Thread Alan Tull
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 1:13 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:41:40PM -0600, Alan Tull wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 12:58 AM Frank Rowand wrote: > > > > What LTSI's are these patches likely to end up in? Just to be clear, > > I'

Re: [GIT PULL] of: overlay: validation checks, subsequent fixes for v20 -- correction: v4.20

2019-02-11 Thread Alan Tull
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 12:58 AM Frank Rowand wrote: What LTSI's are these patches likely to end up in? Just to be clear, I'm not pushing for any specific answer, I just want to know what to expect. Thanks, Alan > > On 11/8/18 10:56 PM, Frank Rowand wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > > > Please pull the

Re: [PATCH v5 00/18] of: overlay: validation checks, subsequent fixes

2018-10-25 Thread Alan Tull
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:57 PM Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:25 PM Alan Tull wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 5:48 PM wrote: > > > > > > From: Frank Rowand > > > > > > Add checks to (1) overlay apply process and

Re: [PATCH v5 00/18] of: overlay: validation checks, subsequent fixes

2018-10-22 Thread Alan Tull
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 5:48 PM wrote: > > From: Frank Rowand > > Add checks to (1) overlay apply process and (2) memory freeing > triggered by overlay release. The checks are intended to detect > possible memory leaks and invalid overlays. I've tested v5, nothing new to report. Alan > > The

Re: [PATCH v4 01/18] of: overlay: add tests to validate kfrees from overlay removal

2018-10-18 Thread Alan Tull
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 4:30 PM Alan Tull wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 9:39 PM wrote: > > Hi Frank, > > > > > From: Frank Rowand > > > > Add checks: > > - attempted kfree due to refcount reaching zero before overlay > > is remove

Re: [PATCH v4 01/18] of: overlay: add tests to validate kfrees from overlay removal

2018-10-17 Thread Alan Tull
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 9:39 PM wrote: Hi Frank, > > From: Frank Rowand > > Add checks: > - attempted kfree due to refcount reaching zero before overlay > is removed > - properties linked to an overlay node when the node is removed > - node refcount > one during node removal in a

Re: [PATCH v4 00/18] of: overlay: validation checks, subsequent fixes

2018-10-17 Thread Alan Tull
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 10:08 PM Frank Rowand wrote: > > On 10/16/18 02:47, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > frowand.l...@gmail.com writes: > > > >> From: Frank Rowand > >> > >> Add checks to (1) overlay apply process and (2) memory freeing > >> triggered by overlay release. The checks are intended

Re: [PATCH v3 00/18] of: overlay: validation checks, subsequent fixes

2018-10-15 Thread Alan Tull
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 3:24 PM Frank Rowand wrote: > > On 10/15/18 12:21, Alan Tull wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 7:26 PM wrote: > >> > >> From: Frank Rowand > >> > >> Add checks to (1) overlay apply process and (2) memory freein

Re: [PATCH v3 00/18] of: overlay: validation checks, subsequent fixes

2018-10-15 Thread Alan Tull
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 7:26 PM wrote: > > From: Frank Rowand > > Add checks to (1) overlay apply process and (2) memory freeing > triggered by overlay release. The checks are intended to detect > possible memory leaks and invalid overlays. > > The checks revealed bugs in existing code. Fixed

Re: [PATCH v3 09/18] of: overlay: validate overlay properties #address-cells and #size-cells

2018-10-15 Thread Alan Tull
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 7:26 PM wrote: > > From: Frank Rowand > > If overlay properties #address-cells or #size-cells are already in > the live devicetree for any given node, then the values in the > overlay must match the values in the live tree. > > If the properties are already in the live

Re: [PATCH 05.1/16] of:overlay: missing name, phandle, linux, phandle in new nodes

2018-10-11 Thread Alan Tull
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 12:39 AM Frank Rowand wrote: [resend of my messed up rejected email of a minute ago, sorry] > > On 10/10/18 14:03, Frank Rowand wrote: > > On 10/10/18 13:40, Alan Tull wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 1:49 AM Frank Rowand > >> wrote:

Re: [PATCH 05.1/16] of:overlay: missing name, phandle, linux, phandle in new nodes

2018-10-10 Thread Alan Tull
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 1:49 AM Frank Rowand wrote: > > On 10/09/18 23:04, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote: > > From: Frank Rowand > > > > > > "of: overlay: use prop add changeset entry for property in new nodes" > > fixed a problem where an 'update property' changeset entry was > > created for

Re: [PATCH 05/16] of: overlay: use prop add changeset entry for property in new nodes

2018-10-09 Thread Alan Tull
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 11:14 PM wrote: > > From: Frank Rowand > Hi Frank, > The changeset entry 'update property' was used for new properties in > an overlay instead of 'add property'. > > The decision of whether to use 'update property' was based on whether > the property already exists in

Re: [PATCH 09/16] of: overlay: validate overlay properties #address-cells and #size-cells

2018-10-09 Thread Alan Tull
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:02 PM Frank Rowand wrote: > > On 10/08/18 11:46, Alan Tull wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 10:57 AM Alan Tull wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 11:14 PM wrote: > >>> > >>> From: Frank Rowand > >

Re: [PATCH 09/16] of: overlay: validate overlay properties #address-cells and #size-cells

2018-10-08 Thread Alan Tull
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 10:57 AM Alan Tull wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 11:14 PM wrote: > > > > From: Frank Rowand > > > > If overlay properties #address-cells or #size-cells are already in > > the live devicetree for any given node, then the values in t

Re: [PATCH 09/16] of: overlay: validate overlay properties #address-cells and #size-cells

2018-10-08 Thread Alan Tull
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 11:14 PM wrote: > > From: Frank Rowand > > If overlay properties #address-cells or #size-cells are already in > the live devicetree for any given node, then the values in the > overlay must match the values in the live tree. Hi Frank, I'm starting some FPGA testing on

Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] of/fdt: only store the device node basename in full_name

2017-10-18 Thread Alan Tull
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.anton...@konsulko.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2017-10-18 at 10:44 -0500, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Alan Tull <at...@kernel.org> wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Frank

Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] of/fdt: only store the device node basename in full_name

2017-10-18 Thread Alan Tull
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Frank Rowand <frowand.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/17/17 14:46, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Alan Tull <at...@kernel.org> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Rob Herring <r...@

Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] of/fdt: only store the device node basename in full_name

2017-10-17 Thread Alan Tull
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Rob Herring wrote: Hi Rob, > With dependencies on a statically allocated full path name converted to > use %pOF format specifier, we can store just the basename of node, and > the unflattening of the FDT can be simplified. > > This commit will