[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH 28/58] device tree: give dt more size

From: Alexander Graf
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH 28/58] device tree: give dt more size
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:00:41 +0200

Am 15.09.2011 um 13:03 schrieb David Gibson <address@hidden>:

> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:37:48AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 15.09.2011, at 05:19, David Gibson wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:42:52AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>> We currently load a device tree blob and then just take its size x2 to
>>>> account for modifications we do inside. While this is nice and great,
>>>> it fails when we have a small device tree as blob and lots of nodes added
>>>> in machine init code.
>>>> So for now, just make it 20k bigger than it was before. We maybe want to
>>>> be more clever about this later.
>>> In fact, one of the few things I can think of that might justify
>>> qemu's "abstraction" of the libfdt interface, is that the wrappers
>>> could be modified to detect -FDT_ERR_NOSPACE and realloc()
>>> appropriately.
>> Oh, yeah, that sounds like a very good idea!
>>> Otherwise the wrappers, which are limited and not notably simpler to
>>> use than the raw libfdt functions seem pretty pointless to me.
>>> Not that I'm biased as the author of libfdt or anything :).
>> I agree that the wrappers are not all that overly useful atm. I was
>> actually very close to just ripping them out completely instead of
>> extending them for new functionality. I did have the feeling that
>> wrapping libfdt would give us a few benefits, maybe even the chance
>> of getting rid of #ifdefs in target code.
> Hrm, maybe.  Can't really see it.  Of course, my preference would be
> to get rid of those #ifdefs by embedding libfdt in qemu so it's always
> there.

It's a library and should be treated that way. But yeah, I'm inclined to fail 
configure for ppc when libfdt can't be found too.

>> Could you please put this on your todo list? We should probably
>> force every target code in QEMU to only use the wrappers and
>> dynamically realloc() in them.
> Uh, sure, but it's a long list and it won't be near the top.
> The wrappers would need to be a lot more extensive to do this.  I use
> libfdt directly in the spapr code for a reason.

Expensiveness is not too bad here, no? It should still be fast.

Also, I'm perfectly fine with this being low on the list.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]