[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 06/19] xen: arm: move dom0 gic and timer device tree nodes under /xen/
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@xxxxxxxxxx> --- 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 _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |