Re: [XenPPC] [PATCH 3 of 4] [PATCH] Move flat device tree construction from python to libxc for xc_linux_build()

[Jimi Xenidis <jimix@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 16, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Ryan Harper wrote:

> * Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx> [2007-01-15 20:44]:
> > On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 21:29 -0500, Jimi Xenidis wrote:
> > > On Jan 15, 2007, at 8:20 PM, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 17:25 -0500, Jimi Xenidis wrote:
> > > > > > > > +int make_devtree(
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > > Any ideas what this reservation is for? is it for the flat- 
> > > > > > > devtree
> > > > > > > itself?
> > > > > > Nope.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +    /* root.reserve(0x1000000, 0x1000) */
> > > > > > > > +    val[0] = cpu_to_be64((u64) 0x1000000);
> > > > > > > > +    val[1] = cpu_to_be64((u64) 0x1000);
> > > > > > > > +    ft_add_rsvmap(root, val[0], val[1]);
> > > > Yes, it is: see DEVTREE_ADDR in xc_linux_build.c .
> > > so we can lose it, right?
> > You should know: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch? 
> > id=5043 :)
> > Yes, we can remove it.
> Even though we aren't making the tree in python we are still  
> loading it
> at DEVTREE_ADDR no?  Why don't we need it?
First off, the length is bogus.
The reservation list is to let the OS know immediately what memory  
the devtree and all it references are occupying.  However the  
devtree's header contains the real devtree size and the domain is  
given its location.  So the reservation entry is really redundant and  
makes relocating the devtree to an arbitrary location in memory more  
difficult.

_______________________________________________
Xen-ppc-devel mailing list
Xen-ppc-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ppc-devel