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: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:27:49 +0800
Message-ID: <54DAF665.2080804@linaro.org>
References: <1423058539-26403-1-git-send-email-parth.dixit@linaro.org>
	<1423058539-26403-22-git-send-email-parth.dixit@linaro.org>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1502051558170.29696@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
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: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1502051558170.29696@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
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: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, parth.dixit@linaro.org
Cc: ian.campbell@citrix.com, Naresh Bhat <naresh.bhat@linaro.org>, tim@xen.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, jbeulich@suse.com, christoffer.dall@linaro.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Hi Stefano,

On 06/02/2015 00:01, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2015, parth.dixit@linaro.org wrote:
>> From: Naresh Bhat <naresh.bhat@linaro.org>
>>
>> Create a memory node for DOM0.
>>
>> 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;
>> +}
>
> What's the difference with make_memory_node?  Couldn't you just use that
> instead?

AFAICS, the only difference is the way we get the number of address/size 
cells.

I agree that we should extend make_memory_node to get those number of 
cells in parameter rather than duplicating the function.

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall