qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH] spapr/pci: populate PCI DT in revers


From: Greg Kurz
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH] spapr/pci: populate PCI DT in reverse order
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 15:53:17 +0100

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 22:48:38 +0100
Thomas Huth <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 30/11/15 11:45, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > Since commit 1d2d974244c6 "spapr_pci: enumerate and add PCI device tree", 
> > QEMU
> > populates the PCI device tree in the opposite order compared to SLOF.
> > 
> > Before 1d2d974244c6:
> > 
> > Populating /address@hidden
> >                      00 0000 (D) : 1af4 1000    virtio [ net ]
> >                      00 0800 (D) : 1af4 1001    virtio [ block ]
> >                      00 1000 (D) : 1af4 1009    virtio [ network ]
> > Populating /address@hidden/address@hidden
> > 
> > 
> > 7e5294b8 :  /address@hidden
> > 7e52b998 :  |-- address@hidden
> > 7e52c0c8 :  |-- address@hidden
> > 7e52c7e8 :  +-- address@hidden ok
> > 
> > Since 1d2d974244c6:
> > 
> > Populating /address@hidden
> >                      00 1000 (D) : 1af4 1009    virtio [ network ]
> > Populating /address@hidden/address@hidden
> >                      00 0800 (D) : 1af4 1001    virtio [ block ]
> >                      00 0000 (D) : 1af4 1000    virtio [ net ]
> > 
> > 
> > 7e5e8118 :  /address@hidden
> > 7e5ea6a0 :  |-- address@hidden
> > 7e5eadb8 :  |-- address@hidden
> > 7e5eb4d8 :  +-- address@hidden ok
> > 
> > This behaviour change is not actually a bug since no assumptions should be
> > made on DT ordering. But it has no real justification either, other than
> > being the consequence of the way fdt_add_subnode() inserts new elements
> > to the front of the FDT rather than adding them to the tail.
> > 
> > This patch reverts to the historical SLOF ordering by walking PCI devices in
> > reverse order.
> 
> I've applied your patch here locally, and indeed, the device tree looks
> nicer to me, too, when the nodes are listed in ascending order.
> 
> Tested-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>
> 
> 

Thanks for testing !

Cheers.

--
Greg




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]