Re: [PATCH v5 06/19] xen: arm: move dom0 gic and timer device tree nodes under /xen/

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>]

On 11/13/2013 06:11 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> Julien observed that we were relying on the provided host DTB supplying
> suitable #address-cells and #size-cells values to allow us to represent these
> addresses, which may not reliably be the case. Moving these under our own
> known (somewhat analogous to the use of /soc/ or /motherboard/ on some
> platforms) allows us to control these sizes.
>
> Since the xen node is created out of thin air it does not have a corresponding
> struct dt_device_node and therefore we cannot use dt_n_addr_cells or
> dt_n_size_cells, we can use hardcoded constants instead. For the same reason
> we define and use set_xen_range instead of dt_set_range.
>
> The hypervisor, cpus and psci node all either defined #foo-cells for their
> children or do not contain reg properties and therefore can remain at the top
> level.
>
> The logging in make_gic_node was inconsistent. Fix it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
> ---
> v5: New patch
> ---
>   xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c |   76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>   1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
> index 186746c..8645aa1 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
> @@ -48,6 +48,24 @@ custom_param("dom0_mem", parse_dom0_mem);
>    */
>   #define DOM0_FDT_EXTRA_SIZE (128 + sizeof(struct fdt_reserve_entry))

Don't we need to update DOM0_FDT_EXTRA_SIZE?

[..]

-- 
Julien Grall