On Fri, 16 Aug 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 16/08/2019 00:36, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > Change the signature of process_memory_node to match
> > device_tree_node_func. Thanks to this change, the next patch will be
> > able to use device_tree_for_each_node to call process_memory_node on all
> > the children of a provided node.
> > 
> > Return error if there is no reg property or if nr_banks is reached. Let
> > the caller deal with the error.
> 
> This sentence does not match the change below. Only 2 of the new error paths
> are described here.
> 
> > 
> > Add a printk when device tree parsing fails.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefa...@xilinx.com>
> > ---
> > Changes in v6:
> > - fix out of space check
> > - bring back printk when address_cells or size_cells are not properly set
> > - return -EINVAL in that case (different from reg missing)
> > - add printk when parsing fails
> > - return -ENOENT when memory size is 0
> > 
> > Changes in v5:
> > - return -ENOENT if address_cells or size_cells are not properly set
> > 
> > Changes in v4:
> > - return error if there is no reg propery, remove printk
> > - return error if nr_banks is reached
> > 
> > Changes in v3:
> > - improve commit message
> > - check return value of process_memory_node
> > 
> > Changes in v2:
> > - new
> > ---
> >   xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++-----------
> >   1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c b/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
> > index f1614ef7fc..9dc2c1352d 100644
> > --- a/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
> > @@ -130,9 +130,10 @@ int __init device_tree_for_each_node(const void *fdt,
> > int node,
> >       return 0;
> >   }
> >   -static void __init process_memory_node(const void *fdt, int node,
> > -                                       const char *name,
> > -                                       u32 address_cells, u32 size_cells)
> > +static int __init process_memory_node(const void *fdt, int node,
> > +                                      const char *name, int depth,
> > +                                      u32 address_cells, u32 size_cells,
> > +                                      void *data)
> >   {
> >       const struct fdt_property *prop;
> >       int i;
> > @@ -145,15 +146,12 @@ static void __init process_memory_node(const void
> > *fdt, int node,
> >       {
> >           printk("fdt: node `%s': invalid #address-cells or #size-cells",
> >                  name);
> > -        return;
> > +        return -EINVAL;
> >       }
> >         prop = fdt_get_property(fdt, node, "reg", NULL);
> >       if ( !prop )
> > -    {
> > -        printk("fdt: node `%s': missing `reg' property\n", name);
> > -        return;
> > -    }
> > +        return -ENOENT;
> >         cell = (const __be32 *)prop->data;
> >       banks = fdt32_to_cpu(prop->len) / (reg_cells * sizeof (u32));
> > @@ -162,11 +160,15 @@ static void __init process_memory_node(const void
> > *fdt, int node,
> >       {
> >           device_tree_get_reg(&cell, address_cells, size_cells, &start,
> > &size);
> >           if ( !size )
> > -            continue;
> > +            return -ENOENT;
> 
> I don't think we can treat the same way the lack of "regs" properties and a
> size of 0.
> 
> The former is expected as binding allow you to do it for reserved-memory. The
> latter is the user not writing the property correctly. So ignoring the latter
> will result to Xen potentially missing some reserved-regions (not great!).
> 
> So, similar to #address-cells/#size-cells discussion, we should return an
> error we are able to distinguish. Probably -EINVAL.

I think you are right, and honestly I was thinking about it while I
updated this patch. If I use -EINVAL, it would be the same return error
as the "invalid #address-cells or #size-cells". I just wanted to
double-check that it is OK for you.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Reply via email to