| Message ID | 1449481187-23967-1-git-send-email-bmeng.cn@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | Bin Meng |
| Headers | show |
On 7 December 2015 at 02:39, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote: > Currently OF_BAD_ADDR is always -1ULL. When using OF_BAD_ADDR as the > return value of dev_get_addr(), it creates potential size mismatch > as dev_get_addr() uses FDT_ADDR_T_NONE as the return value which can > be either -1U or -1ULL depending on CONFIG_PHYS_64BIT. Now we change > OF_BAD_ADDR to FDT_ADDR_T_NONE to avoid such case. > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> > --- > > common/fdt_support.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) Acked-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:34 AM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > On 7 December 2015 at 02:39, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote: >> Currently OF_BAD_ADDR is always -1ULL. When using OF_BAD_ADDR as the >> return value of dev_get_addr(), it creates potential size mismatch >> as dev_get_addr() uses FDT_ADDR_T_NONE as the return value which can >> be either -1U or -1ULL depending on CONFIG_PHYS_64BIT. Now we change >> OF_BAD_ADDR to FDT_ADDR_T_NONE to avoid such case. >> >> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> >> --- >> >> common/fdt_support.c | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > Acked-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> applied to u-boot-x86/master, thanks!
Hi Bin, On 07.12.2015 10:39, Bin Meng wrote: > Currently OF_BAD_ADDR is always -1ULL. When using OF_BAD_ADDR as the > return value of dev_get_addr(), it creates potential size mismatch > as dev_get_addr() uses FDT_ADDR_T_NONE as the return value which can > be either -1U or -1ULL depending on CONFIG_PHYS_64BIT. Now we change > OF_BAD_ADDR to FDT_ADDR_T_NONE to avoid such case. > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> A little late, sorry - but: Reviewed-by: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de> Thanks, Stefan
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de> wrote: > Hi Bin, > > On 07.12.2015 10:39, Bin Meng wrote: >> >> Currently OF_BAD_ADDR is always -1ULL. When using OF_BAD_ADDR as the >> return value of dev_get_addr(), it creates potential size mismatch >> as dev_get_addr() uses FDT_ADDR_T_NONE as the return value which can >> be either -1U or -1ULL depending on CONFIG_PHYS_64BIT. Now we change >> OF_BAD_ADDR to FDT_ADDR_T_NONE to avoid such case. >> >> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> > > > A little late, sorry - but: > > Reviewed-by: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de> > Thanks Stefan. Added Stefan's review tag, and re-applied to u-boot-x86/master!
diff --git a/common/fdt_support.c b/common/fdt_support.c index a7ff2df..66464db 100644 --- a/common/fdt_support.c +++ b/common/fdt_support.c @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ #include <libfdt.h> #include <fdt_support.h> #include <exports.h> +#include <fdtdec.h> /** * fdt_getprop_u32_default_node - Return a node's property or a default @@ -950,7 +951,7 @@ void fdt_del_node_and_alias(void *blob, const char *alias) /* Max address size we deal with */ #define OF_MAX_ADDR_CELLS 4 -#define OF_BAD_ADDR ((u64)-1) +#define OF_BAD_ADDR FDT_ADDR_T_NONE #define OF_CHECK_COUNTS(na, ns) ((na) > 0 && (na) <= OF_MAX_ADDR_CELLS && \ (ns) > 0)
Currently OF_BAD_ADDR is always -1ULL. When using OF_BAD_ADDR as the return value of dev_get_addr(), it creates potential size mismatch as dev_get_addr() uses FDT_ADDR_T_NONE as the return value which can be either -1U or -1ULL depending on CONFIG_PHYS_64BIT. Now we change OF_BAD_ADDR to FDT_ADDR_T_NONE to avoid such case. Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> --- common/fdt_support.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)