[U-Boot] [PATCH] fdt_support: Check for bank size before updating memory node
In case if one of the bank that is passed is of size zero, then u-boot will be updating memory node with a bank of size zero. There is not need to update memory node if size is zero, so check for bank size before updating.
Signed-off-by: Lokesh Vutla lokeshvutla@ti.com --- common/fdt_support.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/common/fdt_support.c b/common/fdt_support.c index f86365e..0019eef 100644 --- a/common/fdt_support.c +++ b/common/fdt_support.c @@ -401,6 +401,9 @@ static int fdt_pack_reg(const void *fdt, void *buf, u64 *address, u64 *size, char *p = buf;
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) { + if (size[i] == 0) + continue; + if (address_cells == 2) *(fdt64_t *)p = cpu_to_fdt64(address[i]); else
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 08:04:04PM +0530, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
In case if one of the bank that is passed is of size zero, then u-boot will be updating memory node with a bank of size zero. There is not need to update memory node if size is zero, so check for bank size before
is not.
updating.
Signed-off-by: Lokesh Vutla lokeshvutla@ti.com
common/fdt_support.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/common/fdt_support.c b/common/fdt_support.c index f86365e..0019eef 100644 --- a/common/fdt_support.c +++ b/common/fdt_support.c @@ -401,6 +401,9 @@ static int fdt_pack_reg(const void *fdt, void *buf, u64 *address, u64 *size, char *p = buf;
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
if (size[i] == 0)continue;- if (address_cells == 2) *(fdt64_t *)p = cpu_to_fdt64(address[i]); else
So I suggested something along these lines a long while ago as part of how to fix the problem of DT has correct (and larger than U-Boot can see) memory size, so I like the change. But it's a "big" behavior change that we (I) need to note in the release notes at least. When I looked last things were either setting a 0 size or a correct looking size, but I bet we'll still see a few things drop out wrt incorrect (too small) memory size being passed. I wonder what the best list(s) would be to let everyone know about this would be...
On Thursday 22 October 2015 08:21 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 08:04:04PM +0530, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
In case if one of the bank that is passed is of size zero, then u-boot will be updating memory node with a bank of size zero. There is not need to update memory node if size is zero, so check for bank size before
is not.
Oops. will correct it in v2.
updating.
Signed-off-by: Lokesh Vutla lokeshvutla@ti.com
common/fdt_support.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/common/fdt_support.c b/common/fdt_support.c index f86365e..0019eef 100644 --- a/common/fdt_support.c +++ b/common/fdt_support.c @@ -401,6 +401,9 @@ static int fdt_pack_reg(const void *fdt, void *buf, u64 *address, u64 *size, char *p = buf;
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
if (size[i] == 0)continue;- if (address_cells == 2) *(fdt64_t *)p = cpu_to_fdt64(address[i]); else
So I suggested something along these lines a long while ago as part of how to fix the problem of DT has correct (and larger than U-Boot can see) memory size, so I like the change. But it's a "big" behavior change that we (I) need to note in the release notes at least. When I looked last things were either setting a 0 size or a correct looking size, but I bet we'll still see a few things drop out wrt incorrect (too small) memory size being passed. I wonder what the best list(s) would be to let everyone know about this would be...
Shall I take this as your Reviewed-by ? Not sure about how to let everyone know about this. Please let me know to whom all I have to cc for posting v2 of this patch.
Thanks and regards, Lokesh
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:08:29AM +0530, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
On Thursday 22 October 2015 08:21 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 08:04:04PM +0530, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
In case if one of the bank that is passed is of size zero, then u-boot will be updating memory node with a bank of size zero. There is not need to update memory node if size is zero, so check for bank size before
is not.
Oops. will correct it in v2.
updating.
Signed-off-by: Lokesh Vutla lokeshvutla@ti.com
common/fdt_support.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/common/fdt_support.c b/common/fdt_support.c index f86365e..0019eef 100644 --- a/common/fdt_support.c +++ b/common/fdt_support.c @@ -401,6 +401,9 @@ static int fdt_pack_reg(const void *fdt, void *buf, u64 *address, u64 *size, char *p = buf;
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
if (size[i] == 0)continue;- if (address_cells == 2) *(fdt64_t *)p = cpu_to_fdt64(address[i]); else
So I suggested something along these lines a long while ago as part of how to fix the problem of DT has correct (and larger than U-Boot can see) memory size, so I like the change. But it's a "big" behavior change that we (I) need to note in the release notes at least. When I looked last things were either setting a 0 size or a correct looking size, but I bet we'll still see a few things drop out wrt incorrect (too small) memory size being passed. I wonder what the best list(s) would be to let everyone know about this would be...
Shall I take this as your Reviewed-by ? Not sure about how to let everyone know about this. Please let me know to whom all I have to cc for posting v2 of this patch.
Yeah, that counts as a reviewed by. Once I merge this I'll go poke lkml/lakml/linuxppc-dev at least.
participants (3)
-
Lokesh Vutla -
Lokesh Vutla -
Tom Rini