[U-Boot] [PATCH 00/32] Initial sparse fix series

David Gibson
2012-10-19T00:43:24Z

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 05:30:22PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 23:11:12 +1100
> David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 08:19:23PM -0400, Jerry Van Baren wrote:
> > > Hi David, Jon,
> > >
> > > Kim Phillips created a series of patches to change variable declarations
> > > that are big endian to be __be32/__be64. Since the device tree is
> > > defined to be big endian, he created a patch to mark the appropriate
> > > libfdt entities as __be*.
> >
> > So, in general I approve the idea of having endian annotations.
> > Obviously we do need to make sure it doesn't break things.
>
> cool.
>
> > > On 10/16/2012 08:28 PM, Kim Phillips wrote:
> > > > This 32-patch series only begins to address making u-boot source more
> > > > 'sparseable,' or sparse-clean, ultimately to catch type, address space,
> > > > and endianness mismatches and generally improve code quality. E.g., in this
> > > > initial dose whose main purpose is to reduce the output volume to workable
> > > > levels, a couple of endianness bugs are found and fixed in
> > > > of_bus_default_translate() and fdt_get_base_address(). See [PATCH 14/32]
> > > > common/fdt_support.c: sparse fixes.
> > >
> > > Upside: This is very good for identifying endian errors early.
> > > Downside: It could break/complicate non-linux uses of libfdt.
> >
> > This shouldn't be an inherent problem - we can always have the default
> > behaviour be that be32 etc. are #defined to be uint32_t, and we only
> > turn on "real" annotations when we have the right setup.
> >
> > It does complicate things a bit, but I think it should be manageable.
> >
> > I'd much prefer to see this done against the upstream dtc/libfdt, of
> > course, rather than the u-boot copy.
>
> understood.
>
> > > What are your thoughts on this quest?
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > Note that there are two libfdt dependencies:
> > >
> > > [snipped #1, u-boot-fdt dependency, NBD]
> > >
> > > > 2. potential upstream dtc change dependencies, due to having to attribute base
> > > > device tree header types to __be32 in include/libfdt. See patch 19/32
> > > > "include/fdt.h: sparse fixes". It is unknown whether such changes would
> > > > be welcome to dtc (but there's a way to find out :).
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > Build-tested in both endians :). Please help test.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Kim
> > >
> > > Below is the actual patch for reference (it was in a separate email).
> > > The impact in terms of changed lines is pretty small. I'm not sure how
> > > this impacts non-linux / non-gcc systems since the sparse checker comes
> > > from a linux background and uses gcc extensions.
> > >
> > > Possibly this could be handled a definition:
> > >
> > > #ifndef _LINUX_TYPES_H
> > > typedef uint32_t __be32
> > > typedef uint64_t __be64
> > > #endif
> >
> > Yes, something along those lines would be appropriate, although I
> > think that condition isn't right.
>
> right, we don't want all uint32_t's to be one endian, we just want
> fdt32 types to have big endian annotation when being checked by a
> checker such as sparse.

Right.

> > > > include/fdt.h | 33 +++++++++++++++++----------------
> > > > include/fdt_support.h | 2 ++
> > > > include/libfdt.h | 4 ++--
> > > > lib/libfdt/fdt.c | 2 +-
> > > > lib/libfdt/fdt_ro.c | 2 +-
> > > > lib/libfdt/fdt_rw.c | 4 ++--
> > > > lib/libfdt/fdt_sw.c | 4 ++--
> > > > lib/libfdt/fdt_wip.c | 2 +-
> > > > 8 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/fdt.h b/include/fdt.h
> > > > index c51212e..1b7f044 100644
> > > > --- a/include/fdt.h
> > > > +++ b/include/fdt.h
> > > > @@ -2,40 +2,41 @@
> > > > #define _FDT_H
> > > >
> > > > #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> > > > +#include <asm/byteorder.h>
> >
> > This change, however, is not acceptable. libfdt is supposed to
> > compile in a wide range of environments (such as bootloaders and
> > firmwares) which may be very different from a typical Unix userland
> > environment. As such all the headers are built to have minimal
> > dependencies on external libraries. The byteorder headers are, alas,
> > horribly non-portable even amongst otherwise similar Unix systems, so
> > right out for libfdt.
> >
> > In fact, the way this is supposed to work is that the *only* external
> > header directly included by the fdt headers is libfdt_env.h. It is
> > supplied by the surrounding build environment and is responsible for
> > providing the minimal things that libfdt does require. Roughly
> > speaking that's: stdint like types, some byteswap functions and a some
> > string.h prototypes - exactly what's required should be better
> > documented than it currently is. libfdt_env.h can do this either by
> > including appropriate pre-existing headers from the environment, or by
> > directly defining the required things, whichever makes sense. The
> > libfdt_env.h which is shipped with libfdt is essentially just an
> > example, for use in the environment of "POSIX like userspace".
> >
> > Anyway, I think the right way to handle this is to decide on a name
> > like __FDT_ANNOTATIONS__ or something.
>
> this is named __CHECKER__ in linux and u-boot. Ifdef __CHECKER__,
> then the code is being parsed by a checker.

Ok, that name works for me.

> > In fdt.h we have
> >
> > #ifndef __FDT_ANNOTATIONS__
> > typedef uint32_t fdt32_t;
> > /* etc */
> > #endif
> >
> > And libfdt is reworked to use these fdt32_t and so forth types. Then,
> > by default everything should compile fine, but with no extra checking.
> > Environments which have sparse or a similar checker available can
> > #define __FDT_ANNOTATIONS__ from their version of libfdt_env.h in
> > which case they would also be required to define the annotated integer
> > types as necessary for their checker.
> >
> > For convenience on Linux systems we can have the "default"
> > libfdt_env.h shipped with libfdt go either way depending on SPARSE,
> > LINUX_TYPES or whatever suitable pre-existing preprocessor tags we can
> > locate.
>
> understood, that's how I envisaged things going too.
>
> Let me see what I can do.

Sounds good.

--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!