From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 21/35] xen/arm: Create memory node for
	DOM0
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 03:51:44 +0000
Message-ID: <54D2E8D0.7030104@linaro.org>
References: <1423058539-26403-1-git-send-email-parth.dixit@linaro.org>
	<1423058539-26403-22-git-send-email-parth.dixit@linaro.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1423058539-26403-22-git-send-email-parth.dixit@linaro.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: parth.dixit@linaro.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
Cc: ian.campbell@citrix.com, Naresh Bhat <naresh.bhat@linaro.org>, tim@xen.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, jbeulich@suse.com, christoffer.dall@linaro.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Hi Parth,

On 04/02/2015 14:02, parth.dixit@linaro.org wrote:
> From: Naresh Bhat <naresh.bhat@linaro.org>
>
> Create a memory node for DOM0.

I'm not convince it's necessary to have a separate patch for this. I 
would squash it the #20.

> Signed-off-by: Naresh Bhat <naresh.bhat@linaro.org>
> ---
>   xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 48 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
> index bb7f043..30bebe5 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
> @@ -1155,6 +1155,50 @@ static int handle_node(struct domain *d, struct kernel_info *kinfo,
>       return res;
>   }
>
> +static int make_memory_node_acpi(const struct domain *d,
> +                            void *fdt,
> +                            int addr_cells,
> +                            int size_cells,
> +                            const struct kernel_info *kinfo)
> +{
> +    int res, i;
> +    int reg_size = addr_cells + size_cells;
> +    int nr_cells = reg_size*kinfo->mem.nr_banks;
> +    __be32 reg[nr_cells];
> +    __be32 *cells;
> +
> +    DPRINT("Create memory node (reg size %d, nr cells %d)\n", reg_size, nr_cells);
> +
> +    /* ePAPR 3.4 */
> +    res = fdt_begin_node(fdt, "memory");
> +    if ( res )
> +        return res;
> +
> +    res = fdt_property_string(fdt, "device_type", "memory");
> +    if ( res )
> +        return res;
> +
> +    cells = &reg[0];
> +    for ( i = 0 ; i < kinfo->mem.nr_banks; i++ )
> +    {
> +        u64 start = kinfo->mem.bank[i].start;
> +        u64 size = kinfo->mem.bank[i].size;
> +
> +        DPRINT("  Bank %d: %#"PRIx64"->%#"PRIx64"\n",
> +                i, start, start + size);
> +
> +        dt_set_range(&cells, fdt, start, size);
> +    }
> +
> +    res = fdt_property(fdt, "reg", reg, sizeof(reg));
> +    if ( res )
> +        return res;
> +
> +    res = fdt_end_node(fdt);
> +
> +    return res;
> +}
> +

Why did you duplicate make_memory_node rather than slightly modify the 
function to support both ACPI and DT version?

>   /*
>    * Prepare a minimal DTB for DOM0 which contains
>    * bootargs, memory information,
> @@ -1196,6 +1240,10 @@ static int prepare_dtb_acpi(struct domain *d, struct kernel_info *kinfo)
>       if ( ret )
>           return ret;
>
> +    ret = make_memory_node_acpi(d, kinfo->fdt, 2, 1, kinfo);

I forget to mention it on the previous patch. Please add 2 defines for 
the value 2/1.

> +    if ( ret )
> +        goto err;
> +
>       ret = fdt_end_node(kinfo->fdt);
>       if ( ret < 0 )
>           goto err;
>

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall