From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93826C00449 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 19:14:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 167C22084D for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 19:14:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="bZHX/7wf" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 167C22084D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42Rfb31WXtzDqdd for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2018 05:14:55 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="bZHX/7wf"; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com (client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::541; helo=mail-pg1-x541.google.com; envelope-from=frowand.list@gmail.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="bZHX/7wf"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail-pg1-x541.google.com (mail-pg1-x541.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::541]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42RfSR1s5GzDq74 for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2018 05:09:11 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-pg1-x541.google.com with SMTP id g2-v6so5113015pgu.11 for ; Fri, 05 Oct 2018 12:09:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gSCa6qDpcon9k244TFOFHwaXaUdRj7V+ii+TFFiVhdQ=; b=bZHX/7wfbMAskGGgHetrbI0X4CXTsv3ajvmfXYV/7jsTlNbCrDl1IDTGYiN7jR1aQ9 DEGSxl4txsFl4+Wvp6ejkOSedtKIxIDY5GPmGRYvx9ej1CN0/qzWgFFgqucomcNGrIU7 /LhKH3UH75YBsvqw1THDUGh9nuJzethM+4uuww9/Sffgf5l482j05IRdv1Mh2X3vJGnG sYR3GOgUhNG1a4MioiAnkpX/LBUGjLMKgvRSiQ9hhx1Gd0vK6/Ni0eAOksi9xy8zlRkr KqCCSSkLftM/cqWPaxcun6sT8T/5ih9RVqa1op1jPk863qgkijPIj3qyqKdZHC+7/bXa 3xPQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gSCa6qDpcon9k244TFOFHwaXaUdRj7V+ii+TFFiVhdQ=; b=j1bdCfqxHU0LOAKFjSYOx4UyNAVbknXXr4feCEIti7Fzk3MzmscBf7nHBbyH12AGSI OkktBypJMBem+5Og0qQBqel52vvMaeWA5+v67Wt61CaveuxAUPADZFqsci7RRbu1a81i COwDO4MT8zN8z5aExPdjpYVBNocvEMIFlBeuSr2crR9mcYLtYLIngbGWORyYGsnlf4zL T0jSCDp3LLaXXxA/uMX5vxxbklwPY+TjV5Hd+VBLKYd4Zy6iD6knaXgHK5K6qKrkuklV QI4VpsBhrgL8F2T/qTm8R794HtfDw+wq/4liQJ7CP/zPTnHXYFRvSVEBjsFCT2OMONEk U9OQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfoi0dtJBTxHNIbcrnI0rn66ts5BJzH1xmzNVKE8ow1NWmqfQ8wx9 E+h6OudAw1HeMKiFZjRNMxM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV60Hc89meiLiv6oiMz6/lxaFfLNmJ2aGnBFdEh4GLFtkwb3huScwcj01iHOC3MAkGv/X2d5zuQ== X-Received: by 2002:a62:9e52:: with SMTP id s79-v6mr13625594pfd.110.1538766549073; Fri, 05 Oct 2018 12:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.70] (c-24-6-192-50.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.6.192.50]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s133-v6sm3669729pgc.78.2018.10.05.12.09.07 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Oct 2018 12:09:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/16] of: overlay: validate overlay properties #address-cells and #size-cells To: Rob Herring References: <1538712767-30394-1-git-send-email-frowand.list@gmail.com> <1538712767-30394-10-git-send-email-frowand.list@gmail.com> From: Frank Rowand Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:09:06 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Alan Tull , linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org, Pantelis Antoniou , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Moritz Fischer , Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-dev Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On 10/05/18 12:04, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 1:53 PM Frank Rowand wrote: >> >> On 10/05/18 08:07, Rob Herring wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 11:14 PM wrote: >>>> >>>> From: Frank Rowand >>>> >>>> If overlay properties #address-cells or #size-cells are already in >>>> the live devicetree for any given node, then the values in the >>>> overlay must match the values in the live tree. >>>> >>>> If the properties are already in the live tree then there is no >>>> need to create a changeset entry to add them since they must >>>> have the same value. This reduces the memory used by the >>>> changeset and eliminates a possible memory leak. This is >>>> verified by 12 fewer warnings during the devicetree unittest, >>>> as the possible memory leak warnings about #address-cells and >>> >>> and...? >> >> #size-cells no longer occur. >> >> (Thanks for catching that.) >> >> >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand >>>> --- >>>> drivers/of/overlay.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- >>>> 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/of/overlay.c b/drivers/of/overlay.c >>>> index 29c33a5c533f..e6fb3ffe9d93 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/of/overlay.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/of/overlay.c >>>> @@ -287,7 +287,12 @@ static struct property *dup_and_fixup_symbol_prop( >>>> * @target may be either in the live devicetree or in a new subtree that >>>> * is contained in the changeset. >>>> * >>>> - * Some special properties are not updated (no error returned). >>>> + * Some special properties are not added or updated (no error returned): >>>> + * "name", "phandle", "linux,phandle". >>>> + * >>>> + * Properties "#address-cells" and "#size-cells" are not updated if they >>>> + * are already in the live tree, but if present in the live tree, the values >>>> + * in the overlay must match the values in the live tree. >>> >>> Perhaps this should be generalized to apply to any property? We can't >>> really deal with property values changing on the fly anyways. >> >> That is a bigger discussion. I'd prefer to not hold up this series for that >> question to be resolved. It will be easy enough to generalize in an add-on >> patch later. > > Fair enough. > >>>> + if (prop->length != 4 || new_prop->length != 4 || >>>> + *(u32 *)prop->value != *(u32 *)new_prop->value) >>> >>> Technically these are __be32 types. This could use a helper (of_prop_val_eq). >> >> These are in a unpacked form, so cpu byte order, not FDT byte order. > > You sure about that? Unpacking doesn't change the order. It can't > because the type is unknown. The value of 'value' is the address of > the data in the FDT. Aargh. You are totally right. >>> I'm not sure we really need to validate the length here as dtc does >>> that (but yes, not everything is from dtc). >> >> Since I'm accessing 4 bytes of the values, I need to be sure the lengths >> are at least 4. For #address-cells and #size-cells the property is >> specified as four bytes, so I could simplify the code for the specific case. >> >> If this gets extended to any arbitrary property then a new of_prop_val_eq() >> would check that the lengths are equal and the values (of size length) are >> also equal. > > Right, that's what I was thinking. Check lengths are equal and then > you can just do a memcmp(). Based on all of this it seems better that I create of_prop_val_eq(), as you suggested, and change to use that. > > Rob >