From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([2001:67c:670:201:290:27ff:fe1d:cc33]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1gtTwC-0000Ta-0O for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 09:01:09 +0000 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 10:01:06 +0100 From: Marco Felsch Message-ID: <20190212090106.rpqazqn3qn7zvpmm@pengutronix.de> References: <20190211162013.5320-1-m.felsch@pengutronix.de> <20190211162013.5320-2-m.felsch@pengutronix.de> <20190212080330.canqv5wijgy2bnye@pengutronix.de> <20190212084525.l5xsdltn6kq5bv2q@pengutronix.de> <20190212085622.ni5juzgay6ifrsuf@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190212085622.ni5juzgay6ifrsuf@pengutronix.de> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] memory: of_fixup: adapt to new memory layout To: Sascha Hauer Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org 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