From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:25:51 -0500 From: Scott Wood To: "Mark A. Greer" Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Add dt_xlate_addr() to bootwrapper Message-ID: <20070413222551.GA8258@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> References: <20070413202343.GA552@mag.az.mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20070413202343.GA552@mag.az.mvista.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 01:23:43PM -0700, Mark A. Greer wrote: > +int dt_xlate(void *node, u32 *buf, int buflen, int res, unsigned long *addr, > + unsigned long *size) > { > - u32 last_addr[MAX_ADDR_CELLS]; > - u32 this_addr[MAX_ADDR_CELLS]; > - u32 buf[MAX_ADDR_CELLS * MAX_RANGES * 3]; > + u32 last_addr[DT_MAX_ADDR_CELLS]; > + u32 this_addr[DT_MAX_ADDR_CELLS]; > void *parent; This causes it to use the caller-provided buffer to read the ranges property, which may not be large enough in the case of dt_xlate_addr(). Plus, buf being a pointer rather than an array will cause the sizeof(buf) that gets passed to getprop() to be only sizeof(u32 *). Instead, I'd declare "rangebuf" as a static array, and accept "regbuf" as a parameter (with a comment that regbuf can alias rangebuf). Then, dt_xlate_reg() can use rangebuf as regbuf, dt_xlate_addr()'s caller doesn't have to worry about its buffer being big enough to hold ranges, and we don't have to allocate two 384-byte buffers on the stack. -Scott