[U-Boot] [PATCH v2] dm: core: Add dev_get_addr_size_index() to retrieve addr and size

[Simon Glass]

On 30 November 2016 at 22:54, Stefan Roese <sr at denx.de> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
>
> On 01.12.2016 03:19, Simon Glass wrote:
>>
>> On 29 November 2016 at 23:24, Stefan Roese <sr at denx.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> The currently available functions accessing the 'reg' property of a
>>> device only retrieve the address. Sometimes its also necessary to
>>> retrieve the size described by the 'reg' property. This patch adds
>>> the new function dev_get_addr_size_index() which retrieves both,
>>> the address and the size described by the 'reg' property.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese <sr at denx.de>
>>> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>> ---
>>> v2:
>>> - Account 'index' in fdtdec_get_addr_size_auto_noparent() as
>>>   spotted by Simon
>>>
>>>  drivers/core/device.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  include/dm/device.h   | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>>  2 files changed, 38 insertions(+)
>>>
>>
>> Acked-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>
>> But please check below.
>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/core/device.c b/drivers/core/device.c
>>> index dcf5d9df7d..ed553d70a6 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/core/device.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/core/device.c
>>> @@ -693,6 +693,28 @@ fdt_addr_t dev_get_addr_index(struct udevice *dev,
>>> int index)
>>>  #endif
>>>  }
>>>
>>> +fdt_addr_t dev_get_addr_size_index(struct udevice *dev, int index,
>>> +                                  fdt_size_t *size)
>>> +{
>>> +#if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_CONTROL)
>>> +       /*
>>> +        * Only get the size in this first call. We'll get the addr in
>>> the
>>> +        * next call to the exisiting dev_get_xxx function which handles
>>> +        * all config options.
>>> +        */
>>> +       fdtdec_get_addr_size_auto_noparent(gd->fdt_blob, dev->of_offset,
>>> +                                          "reg", index, size, false);
>>
>>
>> The return value is not checked here. Is this because the
>> dev_get_addr_index() function will return the same error?
>
>
> Exactly. I didn't check the return value deliberately, as mentioned
> in the comment above. I thought this would be clear enough but if
> you don't think so, I can extend the comment a bit more.
>
> Thanks,
> Stefan

Applied to u-boot-dm, thanks!