Hi Quentin,
On Thu, 22 Sept 2022 at 09:53, Quentin Schulz foss+uboot@0leil.net wrote:
From: Quentin Schulz quentin.schulz@theobroma-systems.com
Currently, dm_probe_devices checks that the flags of the device contains DM_FLAG_PRE_RELOC. However DM_FLAG_PRE_RELOC is a driver - and not a device - flag. This means that the check in pre_reloc_only mode would always fail.
Please can you shorten the subject?
Instead, what was aimed to be checked is that either the driver of the device has the flag set, or that the device has the u-boot,dm-pre-reloc Device Tree property set.
So let's fix the check to allow u-boot,dm-pre-reloc devices to be probed.
Cc: Quentin Schulz foss+uboot@0leil.net Signed-off-by: Quentin Schulz quentin.schulz@theobroma-systems.com
v3:
- instead of adding the DM_FLAG_PRE_RELOC driver flag to the device,
check ofnode_pre_reloc(node) in dm_probe_devices before attempting to probe, This is better than v1 in lists_bind_fdt because the latter function does not work on non UCLASS drivers (e.g. gpio-hog) and also because it fixes the cause and does not create a work-around,
v1:
drivers/core/root.c | 12 +++++++----- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/core/root.c b/drivers/core/root.c index f24ddfa521..c4fb48548b 100644 --- a/drivers/core/root.c +++ b/drivers/core/root.c @@ -363,20 +363,22 @@ void *dm_priv_to_rw(void *priv)
static int dm_probe_devices(struct udevice *dev, bool pre_reloc_only) {
u32 mask = DM_FLAG_PROBE_AFTER_BIND;u32 flags = dev_get_flags(dev);
ofnode node = dev_ofnode(dev); struct udevice *child; int ret;
if (pre_reloc_only)mask |= DM_FLAG_PRE_RELOC;
if (pre_reloc_only &&(!ofnode_valid(node) || !ofnode_pre_reloc(node)) &&!(dev->driver->flags & DM_FLAG_PRE_RELOC))goto probe_children;
if ((flags & mask) == mask) {
if (dev_get_flags(dev) & DM_FLAG_PROBE_AFTER_BIND) { ret = device_probe(dev); if (ret) return ret; }+probe_children:
can you use some other way, to avoid the goto?
list_for_each_entry(child, &dev->child_head, sibling_node) dm_probe_devices(child, pre_reloc_only);-- 2.37.3
If this fixes a bug, can we we have a test for it, please?
REgards, Simon