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 Received: from phobos.denx.de (phobos.denx.de [85.214.62.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0809FC05027 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 09:01:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from h2850616.stratoserver.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFFDA856A2; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 10:01:21 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="H8Jb8hgX"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by phobos.denx.de (Postfix, from userid 109) id E4699855B4; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 10:01:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB5C6856D5 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 10:01:06 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D00F6172A; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 09:01:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2F462C4339B; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 09:01:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1674723664; bh=lsuNROJqXsQm9nrB/MquRcwvMry/sNCyFZpV//FoQos=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=H8Jb8hgXzwglCk3/wlmRf09XwBu3wlAVl3pqxk0hqJmxPwAU+6PXMlyy2psjkf6Fu DTFuQEDQNik/hlF+IeJq6QqqPmdqqA38aOWfpUy0C15c3MaGOOHm1lCrRtPTYrlAqO 9qtfMA153UWFoiKdHar3ldh6KoCoisHpn3BmXbN0= Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 10:01:02 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Francesco Dolcini Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Miquel Raynal , Richard Weinberger , Vignesh Raghavendra , Marek Vasut , Francesco Dolcini , u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mtd: parsers: ofpart: add workaround for #size-cells 0 Message-ID: References: <20230124104444.330913-1-francesco@dolcini.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: u-boot@lists.denx.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: U-Boot discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Sender: "U-Boot" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.6 at phobos.denx.de X-Virus-Status: Clean On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 10:06:57PM +0100, Francesco Dolcini wrote: > Hello Miquel, Greg and all > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 04:38:59PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 11:44:44AM +0100, Francesco Dolcini wrote: > > > From: Francesco Dolcini > > > > > > Add a mechanism to handle the case in which partitions are present as > > > direct child of the nand controller node and #size-cells is set to <0>. > > > > > > This could happen if the nand-controller node in the DTS is supposed to > > > have #size-cells set to 0, but for some historical reason/bug it was set > > > to 1 in the past, and the firmware (e.g. U-Boot) is adding the partition > > > as direct children of the nand-controller defaulting to #size-cells > > > being to 1. > > > > > > This prevents a real boot failure on colibri-imx7 that happened during v6.1 > > > development cycles. > > > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y4dgBTGNWpM6SQXI@francesco-nb.int.toradex.com/ > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221202071900.1143950-1-francesco@dolcini.it/ > > > Signed-off-by: Francesco Dolcini > > > Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > --- > > > I do not expect this patch to be backported to stable, however I would expect > > > that we do not backport nand-controller dts cleanups neither. > > > > > > v4: > > > fixed wrong English spelling in the comment > > > > > > v3: > > > minor formatting change, removed not needed new-line and space. > > > > > > v2: > > > fixup size-cells only when partitions are direct children of the nand-controller > > > completely revised commit message, comments and warning print > > > use pr_warn instead of pr_warn_once > > > added Reviewed-by Greg > > > removed cc:stable@ and fixes tag, since the problematic commit was reverted > > > --- > > > drivers/mtd/parsers/ofpart_core.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/parsers/ofpart_core.c b/drivers/mtd/parsers/ofpart_core.c > > > index 192190c42fc8..e7b8e9d0a910 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/mtd/parsers/ofpart_core.c > > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/parsers/ofpart_core.c > > > @@ -122,6 +122,25 @@ static int parse_fixed_partitions(struct mtd_info *master, > > > > > > a_cells = of_n_addr_cells(pp); > > > s_cells = of_n_size_cells(pp); > > > + if (!dedicated && s_cells == 0) { > > > + /* > > > + * This is a ugly workaround to not create > > > + * regression on devices that are still creating > > > + * partitions as direct children of the nand controller. > > > + * This can happen in case the nand controller node has > > > + * #size-cells equal to 0 and the firmware (e.g. > > > + * U-Boot) just add the partitions there assuming > > > + * 32-bit addressing. > > > + * > > > + * If you get this warning your firmware and/or DTS > > > + * should be really fixed. > > > + * > > > + * This is working only for devices smaller than 4GiB. > > > + */ > > > + pr_warn("%s: ofpart partition %pOF (%pOF) #size-cells is wrongly set to <0>, assuming <1> for parsing partitions.\n", > > > + master->name, pp, mtd_node); > > > > This is a driver, always use dev_*() calls, not pr_*() calls so that we > > know what is being referred to exactly. > > Is this reasonable here? Where can I get the struct device? Walk back up the call chain, there has to be a device somewhere controlling this, right? > In general this file uses only pr_* debug API and messages are about OF > nodes/properties, not about a device. OF nodes and properties are part of a device's properties :) thanks, greg k-h