Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 07/10] xen/arm: make process_memory_node a device_tree_node_func

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 30/04/2019 22:02, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> Change the signature of process_memory_node to match
> device_tree_node_func.
NAck in the current form. If a function return a value, then it should be 
checked appropriately and not ignored.
But then, the commit message leads to think you are going to use 
device_tree_node_func here while in fact it is in the next patch. Please update 
the commit message accordingly.
> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefanos@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - new
> ---
>   xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c | 16 ++++++++++------
>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c b/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
> index e7b08ed..b6600ab 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
> @@ -124,9 +124,10 @@ int __init device_tree_for_each_node(const void *fdt,
>       return 0;
>   }
>   
> -static void __init process_memory_node(const void *fdt, int node,
> -                                       const char *name,
> -                                       u32 address_cells, u32 size_cells)
> +static int __init process_memory_node(const void *fdt, int node,
> +                                      const char *name, int depth,
> +                                      u32 address_cells, u32 size_cells,
> +                                      void *data)
>   {
>       const struct fdt_property *prop;
>       int i;
> @@ -139,14 +140,14 @@ static void __init process_memory_node(const void *fdt, 
> int node,
>       {
>           printk("fdt: node `%s': invalid #address-cells or #size-cells",
>                  name);
> -        return;
> +        return 0;
>       }
>   
>       prop = fdt_get_property(fdt, node, "reg", NULL);
>       if ( !prop )
>       {
>           printk("fdt: node `%s': missing `reg' property\n", name);
> -        return;
> +        return 0;
>       }
>   
>       cell = (const __be32 *)prop->data;
> @@ -161,6 +162,8 @@ static void __init process_memory_node(const void *fdt, int 
> node,
>           bootinfo.mem.bank[bootinfo.mem.nr_banks].size = size;
>           bootinfo.mem.nr_banks++;
>       }
> +
> +    return 0;
>   }
>   
>   static void __init process_multiboot_node(const void *fdt, int node,
> @@ -293,7 +296,8 @@ static int __init early_scan_node(const void *fdt,
>                                     void *data)
>   {
>       if ( device_tree_node_matches(fdt, node, "memory") )
> -        process_memory_node(fdt, node, name, address_cells, size_cells);
> +        process_memory_node(fdt, node, name, depth, address_cells, size_cells,
> +                            NULL);
>       else if ( depth <= 3 && (device_tree_node_compatible(fdt, node, 
> "xen,multiboot-module" ) ||
>                 device_tree_node_compatible(fdt, node, "multiboot,module" )))
>           process_multiboot_node(fdt, node, name, address_cells, size_cells);
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel