Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-91368-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
From: skseofh@gmail.com
To: robh+dt@kernel.org
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	frowand.list@gmail.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	skseofh@gmail.com
Subject: [PATCH] of: fdt: modify small size memory check
Date: Tue,  5 Mar 2024 07:38:30 +0900
Message-Id: <20240304223831.11288-1-skseofh@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqKaZ4KcvfNZmn2gj+yXa8eLgzMpdhJJ=+OmMJPvzm-1Qg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_JsqKaZ4KcvfNZmn2gj+yXa8eLgzMpdhJJ=+OmMJPvzm-1Qg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


> >
> >
> > >>
> > >> From: Daero Lee <skseofh@gmail.com>
> > >>
> > >> After page aligning, the size may become zero. So I added exception
> > >> handling code for size 0.
> > >
> > >That may be true, but when would anyone only have memory regions of
> > >less than 2 pages. In any case memblock_add will just do nothing. What
> > >is the actual problem you are having?
> > >
> > >Rob
> >
> > Ignore the previous mail.
> > I modified the patch to clear this size check routine. Please check
>
> You still haven't answered my questions above.
> 
> Though the patch below is a bit more readable than what we currently have...

Well.. I don't see any 'real' problem with this.
But I'm not sure if it's appropriate to leave a part that will be returned 
directly in the next fuction called. Wouldn't it be better to handle the part
can be handled in this function, rather than expecting the next function to 
handle this exception?