Signed-off-by: Olivier Danet odanet@caramail.com

4 Feb 2014

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 odanet@caramail.com
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 odanet@caramail.com

--- 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                 http://openbios.org/
Mailinglist:  http://lists.openbios.org/mailman/listinfo
Free your System - May the Forth be with you
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" ...)

    

Fwd: Re: [PATCH] next-property

Signed-off-by: Olivier Danet odanet@caramail.com