Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: devicetree: fix config option around
 x86_flattree_get_config()
To:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc:     Ivan Gorinov <ivan.gorinov@intel.com>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, geert@linux-m68k.org,
        laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com
References: <1520050346-1333-1-git-send-email-frowand.list@gmail.com>
 <4284204.nJkDQ6O5Aj@avalon>
From:   Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cd3d7bd4-5235-2c1a-b22b-a3a3756d6704@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 3 Mar 2018 12:17:28 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4284204.nJkDQ6O5Aj@avalon>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi x86 Maintainers,

On 03/03/18 01:17, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Frank,
> 
> Thank you for the patch.
> 
> On Saturday, 3 March 2018 06:12:26 EET frowand.list@gmail.com wrote:
>> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>>
>> x86_flattree_get_config() is incorrectly protected by
>> ifdef CONFIG_OF_FLATTREE.  It uses of_get_flat_dt_size(), which
>> only exists if CONFIG_OF_EARLY_FLATTREE.  This issue has not
>> been exposed previously because OF_FLATTREE did not occur unless
>> it was selected by OF_EARLY_FLATTREE.  A devicetree overlay change
>> is selecting OF_FLATTREE directly instead of indirectly enabling
>> it by selecting OF_EARLY_FLATTREE.
>>
>> This problem was exposed by a randconfig generated by the kbuild
>> test robot, where Platform OLPC was enabled.  OLPC selects
>> OF_PROMTREE instead of OF_EARLY_FLATREE.  The only other x86
>> platform that selects OF is X86_INTEL_CE, which does select
>> OF_EARLY_FLATTREE.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>> ---
>>
>> The devicetree overlay change is in patch 1/4 of the series:
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/2/979
>>
>> The pull request for the patch series that triggered the kbuild
>> test robot is:
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/2/1065
>>
>>  arch/x86/kernel/devicetree.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/devicetree.c b/arch/x86/kernel/devicetree.c
>> index 25de5f6ca997..45416826f6ee 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/devicetree.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/devicetree.c
>> @@ -259,7 +259,7 @@ static void __init dtb_apic_setup(void)
>>  	dtb_ioapic_setup();
>>  }
>>
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_OF_FLATTREE
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF_EARLY_FLATTREE
>>  static void __init x86_flattree_get_config(void)
>>  {
>>  	u32 size, map_len;
> 
> This looks good to me. Could you respin the pull request with this patch 
> included ? I need to send a pull request for a patch series based on your 
> overlay changes, and I'd rather avoid breaking the build :-)
> 

I sent this patch to the x86 maintainers and to Rob because of a patch
series that is modifying arch/x86/kernel/devicetree.c, in
x86_flattree_get_config() [1].  It does not look like my patch will
conflict with that patch at the moment, but it is possible that a conflict
could develop as that patch is developed.

I will add this patch to my devictree pull request, and ask the x86
maintainers to ack it and watch for possible conflicts as patch [1]
is further developed.


[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/1/1005
    [PATCH v3 1/3] x86: devicetree: call early_init_dt_verify()