[PATCH 8/15] bootwrapper: convert flatdevtree to version 16
miltonm at bga.com
Thu Sep 27 02:19:47 EST 2007
On Sep 24, 2007, at 10:46 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 01:54:32AM -0500, Milton Miller wrote:
>> On Sep 23, 2007, at 10:36 PM, David Gibson wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 06:05:06PM -0500, Milton Miller wrote:
>>>> +#define MIN_VERSION 2
>>>> +#define OUT_VERSION 16
>>> Should output version 17. In any case, don't try to be so general -
>>> just convert v123 (all basically the same) to latest (i.e. v17)
>>> without all the #if nonsense.
>> Outputing v17 instead of 16 requires more words to be added to the
>> header, and the library does fine with v16.
> For now. libfdt will want v17. Although it will (eventually) have
> it's own v16->v17 conversion code.
If libfdt gets merged without supporting v16 input, then that will be a
regression. This code isn't pretending to address that. The current
flat tree code works with v16.
>> Actually the v1 trees has
>> some other differences such as initrd addresses were kernel linear not
>> real, cpus were assigned logical numbers ... so while the structure
>> didn't change except for the header field, the contents did.
> !? what's your source for this. v2 and v3 were absolutely supposed to
> be backwards compatible with v1 which would not be the case with
> silent semantic changes such as this.
What's your souce for saying the were supposed to be backwards
compatable? That dtc fills out the struct header so?
My source is my involvment when v2 was defined (they were discovered
while writing my device tree generation code):
The actual binary structure is compatable, just not the contents of the
properties nor how any slave cpus wait (for some trees it doesn't
And some more changes just before that:
So its mostly when the kernel generated and required v1 trees, it was
ppc64 only and had these other content and handoff semantics. If it
were to get a v1 tree, it only copes for the boot cpu determination
I'm not aware of any code other than the kernel that would actually
generate a v1 tree (other than dtc, which always supporteed v2, and
doesn't care about these differences).
>> when converting v3 to v16 some of the code issn't needed, the ifs
>> the code size to be reduced.
> Yes, but it never will be, because the only reason we'd include this
> file is for converting old kexec-tools device trees which are v2 not
>>>> +#define OUT_COMPAT 16
>>>> +#ifdef NO_CHECK
>>>> +static int check_v123_tree(u32 *start, u32 *limit)
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> + * check_v123_tree - check integrety of a version 1, 2, or 3 tree
>>>> + * @start: the start of the device tree struct
>>>> + * @limit: the end of the region for the struct
>>>> + * structural checks on device_tree
>>>> + */
>>>> +static int check_v123_tree(u32 *start, u32 *limit)
>>> What is the point of this check? If the device tree is corrupt,
>>> stuffed anyway, so why bother?
>> Hence the ifdef NO_CHECK. When developing, sometimes its nice to
>> if its your input or your program. These functions are destructive to
>> an improperlly formed tree, and in non-obvious ways. When debugging,
>> it's not hard to hardcode console write or read the printf string
>> buffer with a hardware debugger to see error messages. That said, it
>> could be removed.
> Right. Debugging code shouldn't pollute final patches.
There debug code, and validation code. I call this the later. It
validates that the information that should be redundant is in fact
redundant before its removed. The response of the kernel to the tree
may be different if this check fails..
>>>> +#if MIN_VERSION < 3 || OUT_VERSION > 16
>>>> + * move_nops_fwd - move nops in a v16 dt_struct to the beginning
>>>> + * @start - device tree starting address
>>>> + * @count - number of %OF_DT_NOP cells to move
>>>> + */
>>>> +static void move_nops_fwd(u32 *start, int count)
>>> What on earth is the point of this. The NOPs are perfectly valid
>>> scattered within the tree, why go to all this trouble to shuffle them
>> And if you notice, there is a "how many to move" argument. The point
>> of moving them to the front of the tree is the v17 device tree header
>> takes more space than the v3 one, and the v2 header is smaller than
>> both v17 and v16 header. Since I am converting the tree in place, the
>> space has to come from somewhere. Since we are pretty much guaranteed
>> to get several nops, this function moves them forward so they can be
>> overwritten. In practice we move 1-3 NOPS from the early properties >
>> 8 bytes and early grandchild nodes (eg /cpus/PowerPC,xxx).
> This is a hell of a lot of bother to go to for a few bytes.
> Allocating a big-enough buffer for any reasonable devtree in BSS and
> memmove()ing into there would be far simpler.
How big is enough? Who is going to do the research for the various
firmware levels of the big machines to find out how big the tree is?
Sure there are other ways to get the tree to version 16, one way is to
change what is generated. We could update kexec-tools fs2dt to
geneerate a v16 tree to support zImages.
A question for the list: does anyone else have firmware/environment
that supplies a tree < v16?
>>>> + if (tree->last_comp_version > 3)
>>>> + return; /* don't know what to do */
>>> Rather, don't need to do anything.
>> If the tree is >= 16 then we don't presently need to do anything. If
>> there is a theoritical v4 tree we don't know what to do. And if
>> version is 17 but input is 16 we don't know what to do either, because
>> there likely aren't nops in the tree to consume. I suppose we could
>> preceed it with a check for version == OUTPUT_VERSION, but then I'm
>> sure I'd get pointless differentation :-).
> There will never be a v4. Or anything between v3 and v16.
I could see a v4 defined as v3 + the extra header in v17, not that I am
proposing that. Someone decided to skip to v16 for a reason. If we
knew there would never be v4-v15, why did we skip them?
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * move mem_rsvmap and dt_strings if they are before dt_struct
>>>> + * onto our nops . Adjust start addresses for the 3 sections.
>>>> + */
>>> Hrm. Do we really need to worry about this case. You may be
>>> producing v2 trees in kexec-tools, but do they actually have the
>>> blocks out of order? dtc certainly never produced them that way.
>> Out of order? There has never been a spec as to the order of the
>> blocks, only the implicit assumption that they follow the device tree
>> header in a reasonably packed sequence. booting-without-of says it
>> must be in ram,; the offsets are unsigned 32 bit quantities.
>> As to the order, used, the first implemntation was the kernel which
>> writes memreserve, strings, then struct (both the openfirmware client
>> in prom_init and the iSeries procedural library in dt.c). The second
>> implentation written is a procedural based library (similar to
>> never published, but still used internally) that starts with a
>> pre-built header and string table, builds the dt_struct as the
>> functions are called, and when finished copies the memreserve table
>> fills in the dt_size, total size, and memreserve offset.
> Hrm. Yes, well, the iSeries tree is weird in a bunch of ways.
My point is its the same as the client interface code, and proves the
point the order is not specified nor need it be. And since the order
is the same in platforms/iseries/dt.c and kernel/prom_init.c, I fail to
see your point of calling the iseries code wierd. It's building a
device tree via the structured programming methods of calling
functions, each of which creates a node and the properties for that
node. Doesn't sound that much different than how a ieee bytecode
program would create the device tree and fill out properties, and I
would expect any firmware who created the device tree from scratch (as
oposed to editing a paritially built tree like the fixup hooks
presently in the wrapper) would be structured similarly. Since it
doesn't ahve a dynamic insertion library, it must fill in all the
properties of a node completely before its children, and must travel
some depth first order when creating the tree. I don't see any reason
to call it wierd.
>> fs2dt writes memreserve, struct, then strings. Aparently the same as
>> dtc. But yes, the strings can be before the struct, and the mem
>> reserve may or may not be when the strings are before the struct.
> Again. We don't need to deal with the general case here - just the
> real case of trees produced by old kexec-tools.
This function isn't conver_kexec_tree_inplacee. While my justification
for merging this code is it can be used as the target for kexec with
kexec-tools, its not my only use. I also have my internal library that
generates a v3 tree with the pieces ordered differently. If the code
is changed from its general support to support only the tree generated
by kexec-tools, then merging has little benifit to me and in fact it is
harder (I have to maintain a diff to a changing target vs adding a file
to the makefile).
I'll write a later reply that talks about what subsets of this series
make sense to merge.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev