On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 at 19:13, Ilias Apalodimas
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Sughosh,
>
> [...]
>
> > {
> > - unsigned long fdt_pages;
> > efi_status_t ret = 0;
> > void *fdt, *new_fdt;
> > - u64 new_fdt_addr;
> > - uint fdt_size;
> > + static u64 new_fdt_addr;
> > + static ulong fdt_pages;
>
> efi_uintn_t fdt_pages
Okay
>
> > + ulong fdt_size;
> > +
> > + if ((new_fdt_addr && !fdt_pages) || (fdt_pages && !new_fdt_addr)) {
>
> Is there a case when this can happen? I think we can just get rid of it
> entirely
Yeah, I was just trying to be defensive here. But it can be removed,
since these values are not coming from a separate caller.
-sughosh
>
> > + log_err("%s: Fdt address/size not in the right state\n",
> > + __func__);
> > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (new_fdt_addr) {
> > + log_debug("%s: Found allocated memory at %#llx, with %#lx
> > pages\n",
> > + __func__, new_fdt_addr, fdt_pages);
> > + ret = efi_free_pages(new_fdt_addr, fdt_pages);
> > + if (ret != EFI_SUCCESS) {
> > + log_err("Unable to free up existing FDT memory
> > region\n");
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > + }
> >
> > /*
> [...]
>
> Chers
> /Ilias
