On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 09:02:25AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Caleb,
On Fri, 6 Sept 2024 at 03:31, Caleb Connolly caleb.connolly@linaro.org wrote:
On 03/09/2024 20:14, Tom Rini wrote:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2024 at 05:46:19PM +0100, Caleb Connolly wrote:
When using the FDT command to inspect an arbitrary FDT in memory, it will always be necessary to explicitly set the FDT address. However it is also quite likely that the command is being used to inspect U-Boot's own FDT. Simplify that common workflow of running "fdt addr -c" to get the control address and set it by just making $fdtcontroladdr the default FDT if there isn't one.
Signed-off-by: Caleb Connolly caleb.connolly@linaro.org
cmd/fdt.c | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/cmd/fdt.c b/cmd/fdt.c index d16b141ce32d..8909706e2483 100644 --- a/cmd/fdt.c +++ b/cmd/fdt.c @@ -276,8 +276,17 @@ static int do_fdt(struct cmd_tbl *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char *const argv[])
return CMD_RET_SUCCESS; }
- /* Try using U-Boot's FDT by default */
- if (!working_fdt) {
struct fdt_header *addr;addr = (void *)env_get_hex("fdtcontroladdr", 0);if (addr && fdt_check_header(&addr))set_working_fdt_addr((phys_addr_t)addr);- }
- if (!working_fdt) { puts("No FDT memory address configured. Please configure\n" "the FDT address via "fdt addr <address>" command.\n" "Aborting!\n");
Setting aside the behavior change (which I am thinking about), this makes the next check of !working_fdt dead code which should be removed.
I wasn't sure if we could safely assume that fdtcontroladdr always points to a valid FDT, if that's true then yes this can be dropped.
$ ./tools/qconfig.py -f ~OF_CONTROL 11 matches integratorap_cm720t integratorap_cm920t integratorap_cm926ejs integratorap_cm946es integratorcp_cm1136 integratorcp_cm920t integratorcp_cm926ejs integratorcp_cm946es mx6memcal work_92105 xtfpga
So yes, there are boards where it would not be set.
Well, mx6memcal is special. Perhaps all of those integrator boards need dropping? And I'm not sure what's going on with xtfpga...