Re: [coreboot] dt compiler patch

[Myles Watson]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> On Behalf Of ron minnich
> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 11:06 AM
> To: Coreboot
> Subject: [coreboot] dt compiler patch
>
> This has been tested and builds a working boot-to-linux coreboot on
> the dbe62 (old style dts) and builds a serengeti target (new dts, but
> that new dts not submitted yet).
>
> ron

Here's my first pass.

Thanks,
Myles
> I took the opportunity to do some cleanup.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ronald G. Minnich 
> Index: util/dtc/flattree.c
> ===================================================================
> --- util/dtc/flattree.c	(revision 1046)
> +++ util/dtc/flattree.c	(working copy)
> @@ -443,10 +449,7 @@
>  {
>    struct data d = p->val;
>    FILE *f = e;
> int i;
> char *cleanname;
> int vallen = d.len > 4 ? 4 : d.len;

Lets take out the commented code that uses these variables at the same time.
> /* nothing to do? */
>    if (d.len == 0)
>    	return;
> @@ -865,7 +875,7 @@
>
> if (tree->config){
>    	int i;
> -//		treename = clean(tree->label, 0);
> +//		treename = clean(tree->dtslabel, 0);

Maybe just remove this line.
> treename = toname(tree->config->label, "_config");
> for(i = 0; i < emitted_names_count; i++)
> 	if (!strcmp(treename, emitted_names[i]))
> Index: util/dtc/livetree.c
>
> --- util/dtc/livetree.c	(revision 1046)
> +++ util/dtc/livetree.c	(working copy)
> @@ -43,6 +44,74 @@
>    return new;
>  }
>
> +/* XXX HACK */
> +void move_proplist_to_config(struct node *f)
> +{
> struct node *n = f;
> while (n) {
> n->config = n->proplist; 
> n->proplist = NULL;
> move_proplist_to_config(n->children);
> n = n->next_sibling;
> }
>
> +}
>
> +/**
> Given a set of nodes from a chip dts, and a set of nodes from the

mainboard dts,
> update the chip dts nodes with values from the mainboard dts.
> All this work is so that a chip dts can set default values and a

mainboard
> can override them.
> Node definitions come from the chip dts.
> These definitions have properties that are used in turn to create the
> C structures.
> Changing the vlaues of properties in the node definitions is done by
> creating nodes in the mainboard dts.
> For each of the node defintions from 'config', we
> have to match the node definitions in 'subnodes',
> that have matching labels. For each matching label, we modify the
> property settings for the node in config.
> Finally, for all subnodes that are leftover, i.e. did not match

anything in the
> config, we simply append them to the list of subnodes from config.
> Later, it might be an error to have a missing match.
> */
>
> +void
> +fixup_properties(struct node *chipnodes, struct node *mainboardnodes)
> +{
> struct node *c;
> struct node *m = mainboardnodes;
> struct node *del = NULL;
> struct node *head = mainboardnodes;
> while (m) {
> for (c = chipnodes; c; c = c->next) {
> 	if (strcmp(c->dtslabel, m->dtslabel)) {
> 		continue;
> 	}
> 	/* match */
> 	/* the chip properties are in c->config list
> 	 * the dts properties are in the m->proplist. 
> 	 * So copy the mainboard properties to the chip

proplist.
> 	 */
> 	c->proplist = m->proplist;

This is a replacement, shouldn't it be an append?
> 	c->children = m->children;

Again, this is a replacement, shouldn't it be an append?
> 	/* since we matched this node we have to delete it.

*/

The delete function says you can't have children, so the children link needs
to be NULL here.
> 	del = m;
> 	break;
> }
> /* must track head node for append_node below. */
> if (m == head)
> 	head = m->next;
> m = m->next;
> if (del)
> 	del_node(del);
> del = NULL;
> }
> /* backwards compatibility: anything left gets appended to the chip

list */
> if (head)
> append_node(chipnodes, head);
>
> +}
>
> struct property *chain_property(struct property *first, struct property

*list)
> {
>    assert(first->next == NULL);
> @@ -51,12 +120,9 @@
>    return first;      
>  }
>
> -struct node *build_node(struct property *config, struct property

*proplist, struct node *children)
> +struct node *new_node(struct property *config, struct property *proplist,

struct node *children)
> {
>
> static struct node *last_node = NULL;
>
> struct node *new = xmalloc(sizeof(*new));
>
> struct node *child;
>
> memset(new, 0, sizeof(*new));
>
> @@ -64,6 +130,39 @@
>    new->proplist = proplist;
>    new->children = children;
> return new;
>
> +}
>
> +/* we should only ever delete simple nodes: nodes with no kids. */
> +void del_node(struct node *node)
> +{
> struct node *n;
> assert(! node->children);
> if (first_node == node) {
> first_node = node->next;
> free(node);
> return;
> }
> for_all_nodes(n) {
> if (n->next != node)
> 	continue;
> n->next = node->next;
> n->next_sibling = node->next_sibling;

Will this always be true?  It seems like you need to go through again to do
the sibling links right.
> if (node == last_node)
> 	last_node = n;
> break;
> }
> free(node);
>
> +}
>
> +struct node *build_node(struct property *config, struct property

*proplist, struct node *children)
> +{
> struct node *new;
> struct node *child;
> new = new_node(config, proplist, children);
> for_each_child(new, child) {
>   child->parent = new;
>  }
>
> @@ -85,7 +184,7 @@
>
> node->name = name;
> node->label = label;
>
> node->dtslabel = label;
>
> return node;
>
> }
> @@ -98,6 +197,16 @@
>    return first;
>  }

Do we guarantee that you will never be appending to a NULL list (first ==
NULL), I didn't see that check.
> +struct node *append_node(struct node *first, struct node *list)
> +{
> struct node *n = first;
> while(n->next_sibling) {
> n = n->next_sibling;
> }
> n->next_sibling = list;
> return first;
>
> +}
>
> void add_property(struct node *node, struct property *prop)
>  {
>    struct property **p;