[OpenBIOS] Fwd: Re: [PATCH] next-property

[Olivier Danet]

On 03/02/2014 23:12, Olivier Danet wrote:
> On 03/02/2014 15:21, Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Olivier Danet 
> > wrote:
> > > obp_nextprop(node,name) calls the Forth word "next-property" then
> > > pops the
> > > result. "next-property" should therefore always return something :
> > > A string when the property provided is not the last one of the
> > >
> > > node.
> > > Zero when the property provided is the last one of the node.
> > > Zero when the property provided does not exist in the current node.
> > >
> > > Previously, next-property returned nothing when the property didn't
> > > exist.
> > >
> > > "next-property" behavior with last and nonexistant properties differs
> > > between implementations of OF.
> >
> > Right. As discussed before, the current behavior matches the OBP
> > behavior on
> > sun4u machines.
> >
> > It would be nice to keep the comatibility with OBP. Can the C function
> > obp_nextprop(node,name) be modified instead?
> >
> > Artyom
> > > This problem was found with NetBSD on Sparc32. It ennumerates
> > > peripherals
> > > when starting X11 and asks for the "name" and "device_type" property
> > > of many
> > > nodes, including some which have neither "name" nor "device_type"
> > > properties.
> > > Signed-off-by: Olivier Danet
> > >
> > > --- forth/device/property.fs    (révision 1257)
> > > +++ forth/device/property.fs    (copie de travail)
> > > @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@
> > >       2drop r> >dn.properties @
> > >     else
> > >       r> find-property dup if @ then
> > > ?dup if >prop.next @ then
> > >
> > > dup if >prop.next @ then
> > > then
> > >
> > > ?dup if
> > >
> > > ===================================================================
>
> OpenBIOS's current behavior does not match any other !
>
> For "next-property" we have 3 cases :
>    a) The property is not the last
>    b) The property is the last
>    c) The property does not exist
>
> Current OpenBIOS : a) -1 "string"    b) 0        c) nothing
> Standard         : a) true "string"  b) false    c) false
> Sun Ultra10      : a) -1 "string"    b) nothing  c) nothing
> PowerPC iBook    : a) -1 "string"    b) -1 0 0   c) 0
> Previous patch   : a) -1 "string"    b) 0        c) 0
>
> Here is a patch adhering to the Ultra10's behavior, maybe other
> Sun4u computers do differently :
>
> ===================================================================
> --- arch/sparc32/romvec.c    (révision 1257)
> +++ arch/sparc32/romvec.c    (copie de travail)
> @@ -173,8 +173,9 @@
>
> const char *obp_nextprop(int node, const char *name)
>  {
> int found;
>
> int stackcnt;
>
> stackcnt = dstackcnt;
> if (!name || *name == '\0') {
>     // NULL name means get first property
>     push_str("");
>
> @@ -184,14 +185,13 @@
>      }
>      PUSH(node);
>      fword("next-property");
> found = POP();
> if (!found) {
>
> if (dstackcnt == stackcnt) {
>     DPRINTF("obp_nextprop(0x%x, %s) (not found)\n", node, name);
> return "";
>
> } else {
>     char *str;
>    POP(); /* true */
>    POP(); /* len */
>    str = (char *) POP();
>
> ===================================================================
> --- forth/device/property.fs    (révision 1257)
> +++ forth/device/property.fs    (copie de travail)
> @@ -70,14 +70,12 @@
>      2drop r> >dn.properties @
>    else
>      r> find-property dup if @ then
> ?dup if >prop.next @ then
>
> dup if >prop.next @ then
> then
>
> ?dup if
> > prop.name @ dup cstrlen true
>
> ( phandle name-str name-len true )
> else
> false
> then
>
> ;
>
> ===================================================================
>
> The 'standard' way makes next-property more useable as
> a Forth word, but, really, I don't care.
>
> Olivier

Oh, sorry, please forget this patch.

It breaks things elsewhere (".properties" ...)