From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, monstr@monstr.eu,
microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au,
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] of/flattree: eliminate cell_t typedef
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:59:34 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1259207974.16367.226.camel@pasglop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091124081827.6216.1896.stgit@angua>
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 01:18 -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> A cell is firmly established as a u32. No need to do an ugly typedef
> to redefine it to cell_t. Eliminate the unnecessary typedef so that
> it doesn't have to be added to the of_fdt header file
>
> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
> ---
I'm not sure about that one. Yes, we do use u32 a lot and cell_t rarely,
so it would seem logical to switch.... On the other hand, we have that
pesky endianness issue we have never fully solved. So we need accessors
to sort that out, which means directly tapping things as u32 * is not a
good idea if we're going to enforce the use of such accessors.
I believe we should probably just enforce that properties are big endian
for flat device-trees. In which case we could just use __be32 or on of
thoes sparse-friendly types. I know x86 people won't like that much and
to be honest I don't know what 1295 specifies for real OFs but there
aren't enough real OFs around on LE machines for us to care much about
it, is there ?
The reason I prefer a fixed endianness is that allowing "LE" trees
becomes really nasty when a number is expressed using multiple cells.
That brings the question as to whether the two cells need to be flipped
as well or only the bytes within each cell. And that's the easy bit
(probably flip the whole thing). What about something like a PCI "reg"
property which is made of 3 cells, two of them forming a 64-bit address
and one containing additional data & attributes ? What is flipped and
where ?
So yes, cell_t might not be the right approach and by far to generic a
name, but u32 isn't the answer neither.
Cheers,
Ben.
> arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c | 10 ++++------
> arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c | 14 ++++++--------
> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c b/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c
> index e0f4c34..7760186 100644
> --- a/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c
> +++ b/arch/microblaze/kernel/prom.c
> @@ -42,8 +42,6 @@
> #include <asm/sections.h>
> #include <asm/pci-bridge.h>
>
> -typedef u32 cell_t;
> -
> /* export that to outside world */
> struct device_node *of_chosen;
>
> @@ -159,7 +157,7 @@ static int __init early_init_dt_scan_memory(unsigned long node,
> const char *uname, int depth, void *data)
> {
> char *type = of_get_flat_dt_prop(node, "device_type", NULL);
> - cell_t *reg, *endp;
> + u32 *reg, *endp;
> unsigned long l;
>
> /* Look for the ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory node */
> @@ -178,13 +176,13 @@ static int __init early_init_dt_scan_memory(unsigned long node,
> } else if (strcmp(type, "memory") != 0)
> return 0;
>
> - reg = (cell_t *)of_get_flat_dt_prop(node, "linux,usable-memory", &l);
> + reg = (u32 *)of_get_flat_dt_prop(node, "linux,usable-memory", &l);
> if (reg == NULL)
> - reg = (cell_t *)of_get_flat_dt_prop(node, "reg", &l);
> + reg = (u32 *)of_get_flat_dt_prop(node, "reg", &l);
> if (reg == NULL)
> return 0;
>
> - endp = reg + (l / sizeof(cell_t));
> + endp = reg + (l / sizeof(u32));
>
> pr_debug("memory scan node %s, reg size %ld, data: %x %x %x %x,\n",
> uname, l, reg[0], reg[1], reg[2], reg[3]);
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
> index 048e3a3..43cdba2 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
> @@ -67,8 +67,6 @@ int __initdata iommu_force_on;
> unsigned long tce_alloc_start, tce_alloc_end;
> #endif
>
> -typedef u32 cell_t;
> -
> extern rwlock_t devtree_lock; /* temporary while merging */
>
> /* export that to outside world */
> @@ -441,22 +439,22 @@ static int __init early_init_dt_scan_chosen(unsigned long node,
> */
> static int __init early_init_dt_scan_drconf_memory(unsigned long node)
> {
> - cell_t *dm, *ls, *usm;
> + u32 *dm, *ls, *usm;
> unsigned long l, n, flags;
> u64 base, size, lmb_size;
> unsigned int is_kexec_kdump = 0, rngs;
>
> ls = of_get_flat_dt_prop(node, "ibm,lmb-size", &l);
> - if (ls == NULL || l < dt_root_size_cells * sizeof(cell_t))
> + if (ls == NULL || l < dt_root_size_cells * sizeof(u32))
> return 0;
> lmb_size = dt_mem_next_cell(dt_root_size_cells, &ls);
>
> dm = of_get_flat_dt_prop(node, "ibm,dynamic-memory", &l);
> - if (dm == NULL || l < sizeof(cell_t))
> + if (dm == NULL || l < sizeof(u32))
> return 0;
>
> n = *dm++; /* number of entries */
> - if (l < (n * (dt_root_addr_cells + 4) + 1) * sizeof(cell_t))
> + if (l < (n * (dt_root_addr_cells + 4) + 1) * sizeof(u32))
> return 0;
>
> /* check if this is a kexec/kdump kernel. */
> @@ -515,7 +513,7 @@ static int __init early_init_dt_scan_memory(unsigned long node,
> const char *uname, int depth, void *data)
> {
> char *type = of_get_flat_dt_prop(node, "device_type", NULL);
> - cell_t *reg, *endp;
> + u32 *reg, *endp;
> unsigned long l;
>
> /* Look for the ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory node */
> @@ -540,7 +538,7 @@ static int __init early_init_dt_scan_memory(unsigned long node,
> if (reg == NULL)
> return 0;
>
> - endp = reg + (l / sizeof(cell_t));
> + endp = reg + (l / sizeof(u32));
>
> DBG("memory scan node %s, reg size %ld, data: %x %x %x %x,\n",
> uname, l, reg[0], reg[1], reg[2], reg[3]);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-26 3:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-24 8:17 [PATCH 00/11] Yet another series of OF merge patches Grant Likely
2009-11-24 8:17 ` [PATCH 01/11] of/flattree: Merge early_init_dt_check_for_initrd() Grant Likely
2009-11-26 3:51 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-11-26 4:02 ` Grant Likely
2009-11-24 8:18 ` [PATCH 02/11] of/flattree: Merge earlyinit_dt_scan_root() Grant Likely
2009-11-26 3:54 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-11-26 4:03 ` Grant Likely
2009-11-24 8:18 ` [PATCH 03/11] of/flattree: merge dt_mem_next_cell Grant Likely
2009-11-26 3:55 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-11-24 8:18 ` [PATCH 04/11] of/flattree: eliminate cell_t typedef Grant Likely
2009-11-26 3:59 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2009-11-26 4:05 ` Grant Likely
2009-11-26 5:27 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-11-26 21:36 ` Segher Boessenkool
2009-11-26 21:40 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-11-26 23:32 ` David Miller
2009-12-11 6:43 ` Grant Likely
2009-11-26 6:28 ` M. Warner Losh
2009-11-26 7:06 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-11-26 7:52 ` Mitch Bradley
2009-11-24 8:18 ` [PATCH 05/11] of/flattree: merge early_init_dt_scan_chosen() Grant Likely
2009-11-24 8:19 ` [PATCH 06/11] of/flattree: merge early_init_devtree() and early_init_move_devtree() Grant Likely
2009-11-26 4:04 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-12-11 6:19 ` Grant Likely
2009-12-07 7:08 ` Jeremy Kerr
2009-12-11 6:20 ` Grant Likely
2009-11-24 8:19 ` [PATCH 07/11] of: merge machine_is_compatible() Grant Likely
2009-11-26 4:05 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-12-11 6:54 ` Grant Likely
2009-11-24 8:19 ` [PATCH 08/11] of: Merge of_node_get() and of_node_put() Grant Likely
2009-11-26 4:06 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-11-24 8:19 ` [PATCH 09/11] of: merge of_attach_node() & of_detach_node() Grant Likely
2009-11-26 4:07 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-12-10 22:21 ` Grant Likely
2009-11-24 8:19 ` [PATCH 10/11] microblaze: gut implementation of early_init_dt_scan_cpus() Grant Likely
2009-11-24 8:20 ` [PATCH 11/11] of: unify phandle name in struct device_node Grant Likely
2009-11-24 17:37 ` David Miller
2009-11-24 20:33 ` Grant Likely
2009-11-24 21:10 ` David Miller
2009-11-24 21:06 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-11-24 21:39 ` Grant Likely
2009-11-26 12:28 ` [PATCH 00/11] Yet another series of OF merge patches Wolfram Sang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1259207974.16367.226.camel@pasglop \
--to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au \
--cc=monstr@monstr.eu \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).