[U-Boot] [PATCH 03/23] fdt: Add resource parsing functions

[Thierry Reding]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 03:28:09PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
> 
> On 19 August 2014 07:12, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 06:55:18AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> >> On 19 August 2014 05:35, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding at gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> > The Linux kernel handles this by wrapping it in an of_read_number()
> >> > helper and always returning u64, like this:
> >> >
> >> >         static inline u64 of_read_number(const __be32 *cell, int size)
> >> >         {
> >> >                 u64 r = 0;
> >> >
> >> >                 while (size--)
> >> >                         r = (r << 32) | be32_to_cpu(*(cell++));
> >> >
> >> >                 return r;
> >> >         }
> >> >
> >> > It obviously only works for size in { 0, 1, 2 }, but I can add a helper
> >> > like that if you want.
> >>
> >>
> >> That looks good. It works for the cases we need and it's obvious later
> >> where the logic is if we want to extend it.
> >
> > This is what I have for U-Boot currently.
> >
> > static fdt_addr_t fdtdec_get_address(const fdt32_t *ptr, unsigned int cells)
> > {
> >         fdt_addr_t addr = 0;
> >
> >         while (cells--)
> >                 /* do the shift in two steps to avoid warning on 32-bit */
> >                 addr = (addr << 16) << 16 | fdt32_to_cpu(*ptr++);
> 
> Odd warning! Does 32UL help?

The exact warning that I get is this:

	warning: left shift count >= width of type

So the problem is that since addr is of type fdt_addr_t which is 32-bit,
we're effectively shifting all bits out of the variable. The compiler
will generate the same assembly code whether or not I use the single 32-
bit shift or two 16-bit shifts, but using the latter the warning is
gone. That's on both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM.

> > Alternatively perhaps something like this could be done:
> >
> >         static u64 fdtdec_get_number(const fdt32_t *ptr, unsigned int cells)
> >         {
> >                 /* the above */
> >         }
> >
> >         static fdt_addr_t fdtdec_get_address(const fdt32_t *ptr, unsigned int cells)
> >         {
> >                 return fdtdec_get_number(ptr, cells);
> >         }
> >
> >         static fdt_size_t fdtdec_get_size(const fdt32_t *ptr, unsigned int cells)
> >         {
> >                 return fdtdec_get_number(ptr, cells);
> >         }
> >
> > Again, I'm not sure it's really worth the trouble since fdt_addr_t and
> > fdt_size_t are both always either u32 or u64.
> 
> Yes, although I suppose ultimately these might be 64-bit always,
> Perhaps we should merge the types?

That's one other possibility. On Linux there's one common type for
these:

	typedef phys_addr_t resource_size_t;

where phys_addr_t is defined as follows:

	#ifdef CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
	typedef u64 phys_addr_t;
	#else
	typedef u32 phys_addr_t;
	#endif

Perhaps we should simply copy that. I take it CONFIG_PHYS_64BIT is
U-Boot's equivalent of CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT? It doesn't seem to be
documented anywhere but its usage would indicate that it is. I don't
think U-Boot supports things like LPAE, so there's probably no need to
control this more fine-grainedly than with a single CONFIG_PHYS_64BIT
setting.

Thierry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20140820/4233234c/attachment.pgp>