Support NAND partitions >4GiB with Open Firmware
PATCH 1/1 Support NAND partitions >4GiB with Open Firmware
This patch modifes ofpart.c so the total size of NAND FLASH
and the size of an individual partition can exceed 4GiB. It does so by decoding the "reg" property based on the values of "#address-cells" and "#size-cells" in the parent node, thus allowing the base address and size to be 64-bit numbers if necessary. It handles any combination of #address-cells = 1 or 2 and #size-cells = 1 or 2, handles the case where the parent node doesn't have #address-cells / #size-cells properties, and handles the case where the value of #address-cells is incorrectly inherited from farther up the tree than the direct parent.
This patch does not solve the problem that the MTD subsystem itself is limited to 2 GiB NAND sizes, but it is a step in that direction. The final assignment of the 64-bit partition offset and size values is truncated (by the C type conversion rules) to the actual size of the struct mtd_partition offset and size fields (which are currently u_int32's). At some point in the future, when those fields become larger, the code should "just work".
The patch should apply to either 2.6.25 or 2.6.26rc. It has been tested on the OLPC variant of 2.6.25 , with additional patches to other OLPC-specific files that aren't necessary for other architectures that have more mature support for Open Firmware. The OLPC patch set, plus a set of test cases that verify correct operation for various #address-cells / #size-cells combinations, can be found at
http://dev.laptop.org/~wmb/ofpart-olpc.tgz
drivers/mtd/ofpart.c +4 -0
@@ -7,6 +7,10 @@* Revised to handle newer style flash binding by: * Copyright (C) 2007 David Gibson, IBM Corporation. * +* Revised to handle multi-cell addresses and size in reg properties, +* paving the way for NAND FLASH devices > 4GiB by: +* Mitch Bradley <[email protected]> +* * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it * under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the * Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your
@@ -15,0 +19,0 @@
#include <linux/module.h>
#include <linux/init.h>
+#include <linux/device.h>
#include <linux/of.h>
#include <linux/mtd/mtd.h>
#include <linux/mtd/partitions.h>
+u_int32_t decode_cell(const u_int8_t *prop)
+{
+ return ((prop[0] << 24) + (prop[1] << 16) + (prop[2] << 8) + prop[3]);
+}
+
int __devinit of_mtd_parse_partitions(struct device *dev,
struct mtd_info *mtd, struct device_node *node,
@@ -44,5 +54,7 @@ int __devinit of_mtd_parse_partitions(struct device *dev,
pp = NULL;
i = 0;
while ((pp = of_get_next_child(node, pp))) {
- const u32 *reg;
+ u_int64_t xoffset, xsize;
+ const u_int32_t *propval;
+ u_int32_t addrcells = 0, sizecells = 0;
int len;- reg = of_get_property(pp, "reg", &len);
- if (!reg || (len != 2 * sizeof(u32))) {
+ /*
+ * Determine the layout of a "reg" entry based on the parent
+ * node's properties, if it hasn't been done already.
+ */+
+ if (addrcells == 0)
+ addrcells = of_n_addr_cells(pp);
+ if (sizecells == 0)
+ sizecells = of_n_size_cells(pp);
+
+ propval = of_get_property(pp, "reg", &len);
+
+ /*
+ * Handle the possibility of a broken device tree that
+ * doesn't define #address-cells and #size-cells properly.
+ * In a standard device tree, if the address portion of + * "reg" is one cell, the direct parent should have a + * #address-cells property with value 1.
+ */
+ if (propval && (len == 2 * sizeof(u32)))
+ addrcells = sizecells = 1;
+
+ /* Error checks */
+
+ if (addrcells < 1 || addrcells > 2) {
+ of_node_put(pp);
+ dev_err(dev, "Invalid #address_cells %d on %s\n",
+ addrcells, node->full_name);
+ kfree(*pparts); + *pparts = NULL; + return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ if (sizecells < 1 || sizecells > 2) {
+ of_node_put(pp);
+ dev_err(dev, "Invalid #size-cells %d on %s\n",
+ sizecells, node->full_name);
+ kfree(*pparts);
+ *pparts = NULL;
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ if (!propval || (len != (addrcells+sizecells) * sizeof(u32))) {
of_node_put(pp);
dev_err(dev, "Invalid 'reg' on %s\n",
node->full_name);
kfree(*pparts);
*pparts = NULL;
return -EINVAL;
}
- (*pparts)[i].offset = reg[0];
- (*pparts)[i].size = reg[1];
+
+ /* Accumulate the base address and size into 64-bit numbers */
+ xoffset = (u_int64_t)ntohl(propval[0]);
+ if (addrcells > 1) {
+ xoffset <<= 32;
+ xoffset += ntohl(propval[1]);
+ }
+ xsize = (u_int64_t)ntohl(propval[addrcells]);
+ if (sizecells > 1) {+ xsize <<= 32;
+ xsize += ntohl(propval[addrcells+1]);
+ }
+
+ (*pparts)[i].offset = xoffset;
+ (*pparts)[i].size = xsize;
partname = of_get_property(pp, "label", &len);
if (!partname)A revised version of the patch, addressing some points that Segher identified, will be issued soon.
So if you want to review the patch as submitted, please be aware that some stylistic things have already been fixed (u64 instead of u_int64_t etc, use of of_read_number(), removal of fallback code for broken device trees). The info in Documentation/powerpc/booting-without-of.txt will also be amended.
The overall scheme - using #address-cells and #size-cells to permit 64-bit offset and sizes - remains unchanged.
Quoted 18 lines · Mitch Bradley
This patch modifes
ofpart.cso the total size of NAND FLASH
and the size of an individual partition can exceed 4GiB. It does so by decoding the "reg" property based on the values of "#address-cells" and "#size-cells" in the parent node, thus allowing the base address and size to be 64-bit numbers if necessary. It handles any combination of #address-cells = 1 or 2 and #size-cells = 1 or 2, handles the case where the parent node doesn't have #address-cells / #size-cells properties, and handles the case where the value of #address-cells is incorrectly inherited from farther up the tree than the direct parent.This patch does not solve the problem that the MTD subsystem itself is limited to 2 GiB NAND sizes, but it is a step in that direction. The final assignment of the 64-bit partition offset and size values is truncated (by the C type conversion rules) to the actual size of the struct
mtd_partitionoffset and size fields (which are currently u_int32's). At some point in the future, when those fields become larger, the code should "just work".
Quoted 7 lines
The patch should apply to either 2.6.25 or 2.6.26rc. It has been tested on the OLPC variant of 2.6.25 , with additional patches to other OLPC-specific files that aren't necessary for other architectures that have more mature support for Open Firmware. The OLPC patch set, plus a set of test cases that verify correct operation for various #address-cells / #size-cells combinations, can be found at
http://dev.laptop.org/~wmb/ofpart-olpc.tgz
I like the idea - but there are some uglies in the implementation.
Quoted 29 lines
Signed-off-by Mitch Bradley <[email protected]>drivers/mtd/ofpart.c +4
-0@@ -7,6 +7,10 @@* Revised to handle newer style flash binding by: * Copyright (C) 2007 David Gibson, IBM Corporation. * +* Revised to handle multi-cell addresses and size in reg properties, +* paving the way for NAND FLASH devices > 4GiB by: +* Mitch Bradley <[email protected]> +* * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it * under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the * Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your @@ -15,0 +19,0 @@#include <
linux/module.h>
#include <linux/init.h>
+#include <linux/device.h>
#include <linux/of.h>
#include <linux/mtd/mtd.h>
#include <linux/mtd/partitions.h>drivers/mtd/ofpart.c +3
-0+u_int32_t decode_cell (const u_int8_t *prop) +{ + return ((prop[0] << 24) + (prop[1] << 16) + (prop[2] << 8) +
Quoted 2 lines
prop[3]);
+}
You don't appear to actually use this new function.
drivers/mtd/ofpart.c int __devinit of_mtd_parse_partitions(struct device *dev, · line 57
Quoted 9 lines
int
__devinitof_mtd_parse_partitions(struct device *dev,
structmtd_info*mtd, structdevice_node*node,drivers/mtd/ofpart.c +1
-1@@ -44,5 +54,7 @@ int __devinit of_mtd_parse_partitions(struct device *dev, pp =NULL ; i =0 ;while ((pp =of_get_next_child (node, pp))) { -const u32 *reg; +u_int64_t xoffset, xsize;
The names u64 and u32 are preferred for kernel internal things. Certainly not u_int64_t which isn't even the C99 standard name.
drivers/mtd/ofpart.c int __devinit of_mtd_parse_partitions(struct device *dev,
Quoted 12 lines
drivers/mtd/ofpart.c +8
-2+const u_int32_t *propval; +u_int32_t addrcells =0 , sizecells =0 ;int len; - reg =of_get_property (pp,"reg" , &len); -if (!reg || (len !=2 *sizeof (u32))) { +/* +* Determine the layout of a "reg" entry based on the parent +* node's properties, if it hasn't been done already. +*/ + +if (addrcells ==0 )
Redundant 'if'; you've just initialized this variable to zero.
Quoted 49 lines
drivers/mtd/ofpart.c +37
-0+ addrcells =of_n_addr_cells (pp); +if (sizecells ==0 ) + sizecells =of_n_size_cells (pp); + + propval =of_get_property (pp,"reg" , &len); + +/* +* Handle the possibility of a broken device tree that +* doesn't define #address-cells and #size-cells properly. +* In a standard device tree, if the address portion of +* "reg" is one cell, the direct parent should have a +* #address-cells property with value 1. +*/ +if (propval && (len ==2 *sizeof (u32))) + addrcells = sizecells =1 ; + +/* Error checks */ + +if (addrcells <1 || addrcells >2 ) { +of_node_put (pp); +dev_err (dev,"Invalid #address_cells %d on %s\n" , + addrcells, node->full_name); +kfree (*pparts); + *pparts =NULL ; +return -EINVAL ; + } + +if (sizecells <1 || sizecells >2 ) { +of_node_put (pp); +dev_err (dev,"Invalid #size-cells %d on %s\n" , + sizecells, node->full_name); +kfree (*pparts); + *pparts =NULL ; +return -EINVAL ; + } + + if (!propval || (len != (addrcells+sizecells) *sizeof(u32))) { of_node_put(pp); dev_err(dev, "Invalid 'reg' on %s\n", node->full_name); kfree(*pparts); *pparts = NULL; return -EINVAL; }drivers/mtd/ofpart.c +2
-2- (*pparts)[i].offset = reg[0 ]; - (*pparts)[i].size = reg[1 ]; + +/* Accumulate the base address and size into 64-bit
Quoted 2 lines
numbers */
+ xoffset = (u_int64_t)ntohl(propval[0]);
You shouldn't use the ntohl() names outside of networking code. Instead use be32_to_cpu() and the like.
Quoted 15 lines
drivers/mtd/ofpart.c +12
-0+if (addrcells >1 ) { + xoffset <<=32 ; + xoffset +=ntohl (propval[1 ]); + } + xsize = (u_int64_t )ntohl (propval[addrcells]); +if (sizecells >1 ) { + xsize <<=32 ; + xsize +=ntohl (propval[addrcells+1 ]); + } + + (*pparts)[i].offset = xoffset; + (*pparts)[i].size = xsize; partname =of_get_property (pp,"label" , &len);if (!partname)
Signature · 4 lines
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Quoted 58 lines · David Gibson
Quoted 18 lines · Mitch Bradley
This patch modifes
ofpart.cso the total size of NAND FLASH
and the size of an individual partition can exceed 4GiB. It does so by decoding the "reg" property based on the values of "#address-cells" and "#size-cells" in the parent node, thus allowing the base address and size to be 64-bit numbers if necessary. It handles any combination of #address-cells = 1 or 2 and #size-cells = 1 or 2, handles the case where the parent node doesn't have #address-cells / #size-cells properties, and handles the case where the value of #address-cells is incorrectly inherited from farther up the tree than the direct parent.This patch does not solve the problem that the MTD subsystem itself is limited to 2 GiB NAND sizes, but it is a step in that direction. The final assignment of the 64-bit partition offset and size values is truncated (by the C type conversion rules) to the actual size of the struct
mtd_partitionoffset and size fields (which are currently u_int32's). At some point in the future, when those fields become larger, the code should "just work".Quoted 8 lines
The patch should apply to either 2.6.25 or 2.6.26rc. It has been tested on the OLPC variant of 2.6.25 , with additional patches to other OLPC-specific files that aren't necessary for other architectures that have more mature support for Open Firmware. The OLPC patch set, plus a set of test cases that verify correct operation for various #address-cells / #size-cells combinations, can be found at
http://dev.laptop.org/~wmb/ofpart-olpc.tgzI like the idea - but there are some uglies in the implementation.
Quoted 26 lines
Signed-off-by Mitch Bradley <[email protected]>drivers/mtd/ofpart.c +4
-0@@ -7,6 +7,10 @@* Revised to handle newer style flash binding by: * Copyright (C) 2007 David Gibson, IBM Corporation. * +* Revised to handle multi-cell addresses and size in reg properties, +* paving the way for NAND FLASH devices > 4GiB by: +* Mitch Bradley <[email protected]> +* * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it * under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the * Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your @@ -15,0 +19,0 @@#include <
linux/module.h>
#include <linux/init.h>
+#include <linux/device.h>
#include <linux/of.h>
#include <linux/mtd/mtd.h>
#include <linux/mtd/partitions.h>
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 6 lines
drivers/mtd/ofpart.c +3
-0+u_int32_t decode_cell (const u_int8_t *prop) +{ + return ((prop[0] << 24) + (prop[1] << 16) + (prop[2] << 8) +prop[3]);
+}You don't appear to actually use this new function.
It's already gone in the new version (the announcement of which may have been delayed by the mailing list of which I'm not a subscriber).
Quoted 15 lines
drivers/mtd/ofpart.c int __devinit of_mtd_parse_partitions(struct device *dev, · line 58
Quoted 11 lines
int
__devinitof_mtd_parse_partitions(struct device *dev,
structmtd_info*mtd, structdevice_node*node,drivers/mtd/ofpart.c +1
-1@@ -44,5 +54,7 @@ int __devinit of_mtd_parse_partitions(struct device *dev, pp =NULL ; i =0 ;while ((pp =of_get_next_child (node, pp))) { -const u32 *reg; +u_int64_t xoffset, xsize;The names u64 and u32 are preferred for kernel internal things. Certainly not
u_int64_twhich isn't even the C99 standard name.
Already fixed.
Quoted 15 lines
Quoted 6 lines
drivers/mtd/ofpart.c +2
-0+const u_int32_t *propval; +u_int32_t addrcells =0 , sizecells =0 ;int len;drivers/mtd/ofpart.c
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/mtd/ofpart.c +6
-2- reg =of_get_property (pp,"reg" , &len); -if (!reg || (len !=2 *sizeof (u32))) { +/* +* Determine the layout of a "reg" entry based on the parent +* node's properties, if it hasn't been done already. +*/ + +if (addrcells ==0 )
Quoted 2 lines
Redundant 'if'; you've just initialized this variable to zero.
The intention is that the body of the "if" should only be executed once during the loop, since the parent node is the same for all children.
Quoted 48 lines
Quoted 48 lines
drivers/mtd/ofpart.c +37
-0+ addrcells =of_n_addr_cells (pp); +if (sizecells ==0 ) + sizecells =of_n_size_cells (pp); + + propval =of_get_property (pp,"reg" , &len); + +/* +* Handle the possibility of a broken device tree that +* doesn't define #address-cells and #size-cells properly. +* In a standard device tree, if the address portion of +* "reg" is one cell, the direct parent should have a +* #address-cells property with value 1. +*/ +if (propval && (len ==2 *sizeof (u32))) + addrcells = sizecells =1 ; + +/* Error checks */ + +if (addrcells <1 || addrcells >2 ) { +of_node_put (pp); +dev_err (dev,"Invalid #address_cells %d on %s\n" , + addrcells, node->full_name); +kfree (*pparts); + *pparts =NULL ; +return -EINVAL ; + } + +if (sizecells <1 || sizecells >2 ) { +of_node_put (pp); +dev_err (dev,"Invalid #size-cells %d on %s\n" , + sizecells, node->full_name); +kfree (*pparts); + *pparts =NULL ; +return -EINVAL ; + } + + if (!propval || (len != (addrcells+sizecells) *sizeof(u32))) { of_node_put(pp); dev_err(dev, "Invalid 'reg' on %s\n", node->full_name); kfree(*pparts); *pparts = NULL; return -EINVAL; }drivers/mtd/ofpart.c +0
-2- (*pparts)[i].offset = reg[0 ]; - (*pparts)[i].size = reg[1 ];
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 5 lines
drivers/mtd/ofpart.c +2
-0+ +/* Accumulate the base address and size into 64-bit numbers */
+ xoffset = (u_int64_t)ntohl(propval[0]);You shouldn't use the
ntohl()names outside of networking code. Instead usebe32_to_cpu()and the like.
That whole code block has been replaced by a call to of_read_number()
Quoted 19 lines
Quoted 17 lines
drivers/mtd/ofpart.c +12
-0+if (addrcells >1 ) { + xoffset <<=32 ; + xoffset +=ntohl (propval[1 ]); + } + xsize = (u_int64_t )ntohl (propval[addrcells]); +if (sizecells >1 ) { + xsize <<=32 ; + xsize +=ntohl (propval[addrcells+1 ]); + } + + (*pparts)[i].offset = xoffset; + (*pparts)[i].size = xsize; partname =of_get_property (pp,"label" , &len);if (!partname)
Quoted 2 lines · Mitch Bradley
Quoted 1 line · David Gibson
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 01:50:40PM -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
[snip]
Quoted 14 lines
Quoted 14 lines
Quoted 13 lines
(quoted diff) +8
-2+ const u_int32_t *propval; + u_int32_t addrcells = 0, sizecells = 0; int len; - reg = of_get_property(pp, "reg", &len); - if (!reg || (len != 2 * sizeof(u32))) { + /* + * Determine the layout of a "reg" entry based on the parent + * node's properties, if it hasn't been done already. + */ + + if (addrcells == 0)
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Redundant 'if'; you've just initialized this variable to zero.
The intention is that the body of the "if" should only be executed once during the loop, since the parent node is the same for all children.
But the initialization is within the loop body as well, so this won't do it. Just factor the code getting addr and size cells right out of the loop, instead.
Signature · 4 lines
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Quoted 24 lines · David Gibson
Quoted 4 lines · Mitch Bradley
Quoted 2 lines · David Gibson
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 01:50:40PM -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
[snip]
Quoted 16 lines
Quoted 16 lines
Quoted 4 lines
(quoted diff) +2
-0+ const u_int32_t *propval; + u_int32_t addrcells = 0, sizecells = 0;Review
Quoted 10 lines
(quoted diff) +6
-2int len; - reg = of_get_property(pp, "reg", &len); - if (!reg || (len != 2 * sizeof(u32))) { + /* + * Determine the layout of a "reg" entry based on the parent + * node's properties, if it hasn't been done already. + */ + + if (addrcells == 0)Redundant 'if'; you've just initialized this variable to zero.
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 4 lines
The intention is that the body of the "if" should only be executed once during the loop, since the parent node is the same for all children.
But the initialization is within the loop body as well, so this won't do it. Just factor the code getting addr and size cells right out of the loop, instead.
Hmmm. Perhaps it's better to move the declaration of the variables out of the loop instead.
Moving the of_n_*_cells() calls outside the loop requires redundant calls to of_get_child() and of_node_put(), because of_n_*_cells() implicitly reach up to the parent node. That is almost certainly more expensive than the "if".
Quoted 37 lines · Mitch Bradley
Quoted 23 lines · David Gibson
Quoted 4 lines · Mitch Bradley
Quoted 2 lines · David Gibson
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 01:50:40PM -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
[snip]
Quoted 15 lines
Quoted 15 lines
Review
Quoted 13 lines
(quoted diff) +8
-2+ const u_int32_t *propval; + u_int32_t addrcells = 0, sizecells = 0; int len; - reg = of_get_property(pp, "reg", &len); - if (!reg || (len != 2 * sizeof(u32))) { + /* + * Determine the layout of a "reg" entry based on the parent + * node's properties, if it hasn't been done already. + */ + + if (addrcells == 0)Redundant 'if'; you've just initialized this variable to zero.
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 4 lines
The intention is that the body of the "if" should only be executed once during the loop, since the parent node is the same for all children.
But the initialization is within the loop body as well, so this won't do it. Just factor the code getting addr and size cells right out of the loop, instead.
Quoted 7 lines
Hmmm. Perhaps it's better to move the declaration of the variables out of the loop instead.
Moving the of_n_*_cells() calls outside the loop requires redundant calls to
of_get_child()andof_node_put(), because of_n_*_cells() implicitly reach up to the parent node. That is almost certainly more expensive than the "if".
This is not exactly a hot path; clarity and (source) code size are more important than expense. But going down to the child then back up is ugly too. Maybe you should just directly pull #address-cells and #size-cells from the parent node. In fact, of_n_*_cells() are wrong by the OF spec, since they assume the values are inherited, which is not how it's supposed to work.
Signature · 4 lines
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson