[PATCH 66/86] ppc:ppc440_bamboo/sam460ex: drop RAM size fixup

Igor Mammedov posted 86 patches 5 years, 11 months ago
Maintainers: Andrew Baumann <Andrew.Baumann@microsoft.com>, Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com>, Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk>, Laurent Vivier <lvivier@redhat.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au>, Sergio Lopez <slp@redhat.com>, Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>, Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>, Paul Burton <pburton@wavecomp.com>, Artyom Tarasenko <atar4qemu@gmail.com>, "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>, Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>, Andrzej Zaborowski <balrogg@gmail.com>, Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>, Aleksandar Markovic <amarkovic@wavecomp.com>, KONRAD Frederic <frederic.konrad@adacore.com>, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>, "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com>, David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>, Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@gmail.com>, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>, Beniamino Galvani <b.galvani@gmail.com>, "Cédric Le Goater" <clg@kaod.org>, Fabien Chouteau <chouteau@adacore.com>, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>, Thomas Huth <huth@tuxfamily.org>, Peter Chubb <peter.chubb@nicta.com.au>, Radoslaw Biernacki <radoslaw.biernacki@linaro.org>, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>, "Hervé Poussineau" <hpoussin@reactos.org>, Antony Pavlov <antonynpavlov@gmail.com>, Jean-Christophe Dubois <jcd@tribudubois.net>, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>, Alistair Francis <alistair@alistair23.me>, Aleksandar Rikalo <aleksandar.rikalo@rt-rk.com>, Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>, BALATON Zoltan <balaton@eik.bme.hu>, Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
There is a newer version of this series
[PATCH 66/86] ppc:ppc440_bamboo/sam460ex: drop RAM size fixup
Posted by Igor Mammedov 5 years, 11 months ago
If user provided non-sense RAM size, board will complain and
continue running with max RAM size supported.
Also RAM is going to be allocated by generic code, so it won't be
possible for board to fix things up for user.

Make it error message and exit to force user fix CLI,
instead of accepting non-sense CLI values.

Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
---
 include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h |  9 ++++-----
 hw/ppc/ppc440_bamboo.c  | 11 ++++-------
 hw/ppc/ppc4xx_devs.c    | 26 ++++++++++++++++----------
 hw/ppc/sam460ex.c       |  5 ++---
 4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h b/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h
index 7d82259..1a28127 100644
--- a/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h
+++ b/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h
@@ -42,11 +42,10 @@ enum {
 qemu_irq *ppcuic_init (CPUPPCState *env, qemu_irq *irqs,
                        uint32_t dcr_base, int has_ssr, int has_vr);
 
-ram_addr_t ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
-                               MemoryRegion ram_memories[],
-                               hwaddr ram_bases[],
-                               hwaddr ram_sizes[],
-                               const ram_addr_t sdram_bank_sizes[]);
+void ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
+                         MemoryRegion ram_memories[],
+                         hwaddr ram_bases[], hwaddr ram_sizes[],
+                         const ram_addr_t sdram_bank_sizes[]);
 
 void ppc4xx_sdram_init (CPUPPCState *env, qemu_irq irq, int nbanks,
                         MemoryRegion ram_memories[],
diff --git a/hw/ppc/ppc440_bamboo.c b/hw/ppc/ppc440_bamboo.c
index 4d95c0f..66dee89 100644
--- a/hw/ppc/ppc440_bamboo.c
+++ b/hw/ppc/ppc440_bamboo.c
@@ -162,7 +162,6 @@ static void main_cpu_reset(void *opaque)
 
 static void bamboo_init(MachineState *machine)
 {
-    ram_addr_t ram_size = machine->ram_size;
     const char *kernel_filename = machine->kernel_filename;
     const char *kernel_cmdline = machine->kernel_cmdline;
     const char *initrd_filename = machine->initrd_filename;
@@ -207,10 +206,8 @@ static void bamboo_init(MachineState *machine)
     /* SDRAM controller */
     memset(ram_bases, 0, sizeof(ram_bases));
     memset(ram_sizes, 0, sizeof(ram_sizes));
-    ram_size = ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_size, PPC440EP_SDRAM_NR_BANKS,
-                                   ram_memories,
-                                   ram_bases, ram_sizes,
-                                   ppc440ep_sdram_bank_sizes);
+    ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_size, PPC440EP_SDRAM_NR_BANKS, ram_memories,
+                        ram_bases, ram_sizes, ppc440ep_sdram_bank_sizes);
     /* XXX 440EP's ECC interrupts are on UIC1, but we've only created UIC0. */
     ppc4xx_sdram_init(env, pic[14], PPC440EP_SDRAM_NR_BANKS, ram_memories,
                       ram_bases, ram_sizes, 1);
@@ -272,7 +269,7 @@ static void bamboo_init(MachineState *machine)
     /* Load initrd. */
     if (initrd_filename) {
         initrd_size = load_image_targphys(initrd_filename, RAMDISK_ADDR,
-                                          ram_size - RAMDISK_ADDR);
+                                          machine->ram_size - RAMDISK_ADDR);
 
         if (initrd_size < 0) {
             error_report("could not load ram disk '%s' at %x",
@@ -283,7 +280,7 @@ static void bamboo_init(MachineState *machine)
 
     /* If we're loading a kernel directly, we must load the device tree too. */
     if (kernel_filename) {
-        if (bamboo_load_device_tree(FDT_ADDR, ram_size, RAMDISK_ADDR,
+        if (bamboo_load_device_tree(FDT_ADDR, machine->ram_size, RAMDISK_ADDR,
                                     initrd_size, kernel_cmdline) < 0) {
             error_report("couldn't load device tree");
             exit(1);
diff --git a/hw/ppc/ppc4xx_devs.c b/hw/ppc/ppc4xx_devs.c
index c2e5013..54af296 100644
--- a/hw/ppc/ppc4xx_devs.c
+++ b/hw/ppc/ppc4xx_devs.c
@@ -673,11 +673,10 @@ void ppc4xx_sdram_init (CPUPPCState *env, qemu_irq irq, int nbanks,
  * The 4xx SDRAM controller supports a small number of banks, and each bank
  * must be one of a small set of sizes. The number of banks and the supported
  * sizes varies by SoC. */
-ram_addr_t ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
-                               MemoryRegion ram_memories[],
-                               hwaddr ram_bases[],
-                               hwaddr ram_sizes[],
-                               const ram_addr_t sdram_bank_sizes[])
+void ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
+                         MemoryRegion ram_memories[],
+                         hwaddr ram_bases[], hwaddr ram_sizes[],
+                         const ram_addr_t sdram_bank_sizes[])
 {
     MemoryRegion *ram = g_malloc0(sizeof(*ram));
     ram_addr_t size_left = ram_size;
@@ -699,10 +698,19 @@ ram_addr_t ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
         }
     }
 
-    ram_size -= size_left;
     if (size_left) {
-        error_report("Truncating memory to %" PRId64 " MiB to fit SDRAM"
-                     " controller limits", ram_size / MiB);
+        char *s = g_strdup("");
+        for (i = 0; sdram_bank_sizes[i]; i++) {
+            char *t = g_strdup_printf("%s%" PRIi64 "%s", s, sdram_bank_sizes[i],
+                                      sdram_bank_sizes[i + 1] ? " ," : "");
+            g_free(s);
+            s = t;
+        }
+        error_report("Invalid RAM size, unable to fit all RAM into RAM banks"
+                     " (unassigned RAM: %" PRIi64 ")",  size_left);
+        error_report("Supported: %d banks and sizes/bank: %s", nr_banks, s);
+        g_free(s);
+        exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
     }
 
     memory_region_allocate_system_memory(ram, NULL, "ppc4xx.sdram", ram_size);
@@ -725,8 +733,6 @@ ram_addr_t ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
             }
         }
     }
-
-    return ram_size;
 }
 
 /*****************************************************************************/
diff --git a/hw/ppc/sam460ex.c b/hw/ppc/sam460ex.c
index 437e214..f592816 100644
--- a/hw/ppc/sam460ex.c
+++ b/hw/ppc/sam460ex.c
@@ -324,9 +324,8 @@ static void sam460ex_init(MachineState *machine)
     /* SDRAM controller */
     /* put all RAM on first bank because board has one slot
      * and firmware only checks that */
-    machine->ram_size = ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(machine->ram_size, 1,
-                                   ram_memories, ram_bases, ram_sizes,
-                                   ppc460ex_sdram_bank_sizes);
+    ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(machine->ram_size, 1, ram_memories, ram_bases,
+                        ram_sizes, ppc460ex_sdram_bank_sizes);
 
     /* FIXME: does 460EX have ECC interrupts? */
     ppc440_sdram_init(env, SDRAM_NR_BANKS, ram_memories,
-- 
2.7.4


Re: [PATCH 66/86] ppc:ppc440_bamboo/sam460ex: drop RAM size fixup
Posted by BALATON Zoltan 5 years, 11 months ago
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> If user provided non-sense RAM size, board will complain and
> continue running with max RAM size supported.
> Also RAM is going to be allocated by generic code, so it won't be
> possible for board to fix things up for user.
>
> Make it error message and exit to force user fix CLI,
> instead of accepting non-sense CLI values.
>
> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> ---
> include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h |  9 ++++-----
> hw/ppc/ppc440_bamboo.c  | 11 ++++-------
> hw/ppc/ppc4xx_devs.c    | 26 ++++++++++++++++----------
> hw/ppc/sam460ex.c       |  5 ++---
> 4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h b/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h
> index 7d82259..1a28127 100644
> --- a/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h
> +++ b/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h
> @@ -42,11 +42,10 @@ enum {
> qemu_irq *ppcuic_init (CPUPPCState *env, qemu_irq *irqs,
>                        uint32_t dcr_base, int has_ssr, int has_vr);
>
> -ram_addr_t ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
> -                               MemoryRegion ram_memories[],
> -                               hwaddr ram_bases[],
> -                               hwaddr ram_sizes[],
> -                               const ram_addr_t sdram_bank_sizes[]);
> +void ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
> +                         MemoryRegion ram_memories[],
> +                         hwaddr ram_bases[], hwaddr ram_sizes[],
> +                         const ram_addr_t sdram_bank_sizes[]);

With this change this function does not adjust ram size any more so it may 
need to be renamed, e.g. ppc4xx_sdram_banks or something else.

A better patch title may be

ppc/{ppc440_bamboo,sam460x}: drop RAM size fixup

(or without curly braces at your preference).

This is inconvenient for the user because it worked whatever number 
they've given but now they have to do the math. So it suggests that what 
you're replacing this with may not support all the existing use cases. If 
that can't be fixed to allow checking and changing ram size (maybe via a 
callback in board code similar to above adjust function returning adjusted 
size) it may be OK to drop this convenience for the sake of cleaning up 
code elsewhere.

Regards,
BALATON Zoltan

> void ppc4xx_sdram_init (CPUPPCState *env, qemu_irq irq, int nbanks,
>                         MemoryRegion ram_memories[],
> diff --git a/hw/ppc/ppc440_bamboo.c b/hw/ppc/ppc440_bamboo.c
> index 4d95c0f..66dee89 100644
> --- a/hw/ppc/ppc440_bamboo.c
> +++ b/hw/ppc/ppc440_bamboo.c
> @@ -162,7 +162,6 @@ static void main_cpu_reset(void *opaque)
>
> static void bamboo_init(MachineState *machine)
> {
> -    ram_addr_t ram_size = machine->ram_size;
>     const char *kernel_filename = machine->kernel_filename;
>     const char *kernel_cmdline = machine->kernel_cmdline;
>     const char *initrd_filename = machine->initrd_filename;
> @@ -207,10 +206,8 @@ static void bamboo_init(MachineState *machine)
>     /* SDRAM controller */
>     memset(ram_bases, 0, sizeof(ram_bases));
>     memset(ram_sizes, 0, sizeof(ram_sizes));
> -    ram_size = ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_size, PPC440EP_SDRAM_NR_BANKS,
> -                                   ram_memories,
> -                                   ram_bases, ram_sizes,
> -                                   ppc440ep_sdram_bank_sizes);
> +    ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_size, PPC440EP_SDRAM_NR_BANKS, ram_memories,
> +                        ram_bases, ram_sizes, ppc440ep_sdram_bank_sizes);
>     /* XXX 440EP's ECC interrupts are on UIC1, but we've only created UIC0. */
>     ppc4xx_sdram_init(env, pic[14], PPC440EP_SDRAM_NR_BANKS, ram_memories,
>                       ram_bases, ram_sizes, 1);
> @@ -272,7 +269,7 @@ static void bamboo_init(MachineState *machine)
>     /* Load initrd. */
>     if (initrd_filename) {
>         initrd_size = load_image_targphys(initrd_filename, RAMDISK_ADDR,
> -                                          ram_size - RAMDISK_ADDR);
> +                                          machine->ram_size - RAMDISK_ADDR);
>
>         if (initrd_size < 0) {
>             error_report("could not load ram disk '%s' at %x",
> @@ -283,7 +280,7 @@ static void bamboo_init(MachineState *machine)
>
>     /* If we're loading a kernel directly, we must load the device tree too. */
>     if (kernel_filename) {
> -        if (bamboo_load_device_tree(FDT_ADDR, ram_size, RAMDISK_ADDR,
> +        if (bamboo_load_device_tree(FDT_ADDR, machine->ram_size, RAMDISK_ADDR,
>                                     initrd_size, kernel_cmdline) < 0) {
>             error_report("couldn't load device tree");
>             exit(1);
> diff --git a/hw/ppc/ppc4xx_devs.c b/hw/ppc/ppc4xx_devs.c
> index c2e5013..54af296 100644
> --- a/hw/ppc/ppc4xx_devs.c
> +++ b/hw/ppc/ppc4xx_devs.c
> @@ -673,11 +673,10 @@ void ppc4xx_sdram_init (CPUPPCState *env, qemu_irq irq, int nbanks,
>  * The 4xx SDRAM controller supports a small number of banks, and each bank
>  * must be one of a small set of sizes. The number of banks and the supported
>  * sizes varies by SoC. */
> -ram_addr_t ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
> -                               MemoryRegion ram_memories[],
> -                               hwaddr ram_bases[],
> -                               hwaddr ram_sizes[],
> -                               const ram_addr_t sdram_bank_sizes[])
> +void ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
> +                         MemoryRegion ram_memories[],
> +                         hwaddr ram_bases[], hwaddr ram_sizes[],
> +                         const ram_addr_t sdram_bank_sizes[])
> {
>     MemoryRegion *ram = g_malloc0(sizeof(*ram));
>     ram_addr_t size_left = ram_size;
> @@ -699,10 +698,19 @@ ram_addr_t ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
>         }
>     }
>
> -    ram_size -= size_left;
>     if (size_left) {
> -        error_report("Truncating memory to %" PRId64 " MiB to fit SDRAM"
> -                     " controller limits", ram_size / MiB);
> +        char *s = g_strdup("");
> +        for (i = 0; sdram_bank_sizes[i]; i++) {
> +            char *t = g_strdup_printf("%s%" PRIi64 "%s", s, sdram_bank_sizes[i],
> +                                      sdram_bank_sizes[i + 1] ? " ," : "");
> +            g_free(s);
> +            s = t;
> +        }
> +        error_report("Invalid RAM size, unable to fit all RAM into RAM banks"
> +                     " (unassigned RAM: %" PRIi64 ")",  size_left);
> +        error_report("Supported: %d banks and sizes/bank: %s", nr_banks, s);
> +        g_free(s);
> +        exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>     }
>
>     memory_region_allocate_system_memory(ram, NULL, "ppc4xx.sdram", ram_size);
> @@ -725,8 +733,6 @@ ram_addr_t ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
>             }
>         }
>     }
> -
> -    return ram_size;
> }
>
> /*****************************************************************************/
> diff --git a/hw/ppc/sam460ex.c b/hw/ppc/sam460ex.c
> index 437e214..f592816 100644
> --- a/hw/ppc/sam460ex.c
> +++ b/hw/ppc/sam460ex.c
> @@ -324,9 +324,8 @@ static void sam460ex_init(MachineState *machine)
>     /* SDRAM controller */
>     /* put all RAM on first bank because board has one slot
>      * and firmware only checks that */
> -    machine->ram_size = ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(machine->ram_size, 1,
> -                                   ram_memories, ram_bases, ram_sizes,
> -                                   ppc460ex_sdram_bank_sizes);
> +    ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(machine->ram_size, 1, ram_memories, ram_bases,
> +                        ram_sizes, ppc460ex_sdram_bank_sizes);
>
>     /* FIXME: does 460EX have ECC interrupts? */
>     ppc440_sdram_init(env, SDRAM_NR_BANKS, ram_memories,
>

Re: [PATCH 66/86] ppc:ppc440_bamboo/sam460ex: drop RAM size fixup
Posted by Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 5 years, 11 months ago
On 1/1/20 12:54 PM, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>> If user provided non-sense RAM size, board will complain and
>> continue running with max RAM size supported.
>> Also RAM is going to be allocated by generic code, so it won't be
>> possible for board to fix things up for user.
>>
>> Make it error message and exit to force user fix CLI,
>> instead of accepting non-sense CLI values.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h |  9 ++++-----
>> hw/ppc/ppc440_bamboo.c  | 11 ++++-------
>> hw/ppc/ppc4xx_devs.c    | 26 ++++++++++++++++----------
>> hw/ppc/sam460ex.c       |  5 ++---
>> 4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h b/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h
>> index 7d82259..1a28127 100644
>> --- a/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h
>> +++ b/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h
>> @@ -42,11 +42,10 @@ enum {
>> qemu_irq *ppcuic_init (CPUPPCState *env, qemu_irq *irqs,
>>                        uint32_t dcr_base, int has_ssr, int has_vr);
>>
>> -ram_addr_t ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
>> -                               MemoryRegion ram_memories[],
>> -                               hwaddr ram_bases[],
>> -                               hwaddr ram_sizes[],
>> -                               const ram_addr_t sdram_bank_sizes[]);
>> +void ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
>> +                         MemoryRegion ram_memories[],
>> +                         hwaddr ram_bases[], hwaddr ram_sizes[],
>> +                         const ram_addr_t sdram_bank_sizes[]);
> 
> With this change this function does not adjust ram size any more so it 
> may need to be renamed, e.g. ppc4xx_sdram_banks or something else.
> 
> A better patch title may be
> 
> ppc/{ppc440_bamboo,sam460x}: drop RAM size fixup

Or split in 2 patches.


Re: [PATCH 66/86] ppc:ppc440_bamboo/sam460ex: drop RAM size fixup
Posted by BALATON Zoltan 5 years, 11 months ago
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 1/1/20 12:54 PM, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>>> If user provided non-sense RAM size, board will complain and
>>> continue running with max RAM size supported.
>>> Also RAM is going to be allocated by generic code, so it won't be
>>> possible for board to fix things up for user.
>>> 
>>> Make it error message and exit to force user fix CLI,
>>> instead of accepting non-sense CLI values.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h |  9 ++++-----
>>> hw/ppc/ppc440_bamboo.c  | 11 ++++-------
>>> hw/ppc/ppc4xx_devs.c    | 26 ++++++++++++++++----------
>>> hw/ppc/sam460ex.c       |  5 ++---
>>> 4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>>> 
>>> diff --git a/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h b/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h
>>> index 7d82259..1a28127 100644
>>> --- a/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h
>>> +++ b/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h
>>> @@ -42,11 +42,10 @@ enum {
>>> qemu_irq *ppcuic_init (CPUPPCState *env, qemu_irq *irqs,
>>>                        uint32_t dcr_base, int has_ssr, int has_vr);
>>> 
>>> -ram_addr_t ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
>>> -                               MemoryRegion ram_memories[],
>>> -                               hwaddr ram_bases[],
>>> -                               hwaddr ram_sizes[],
>>> -                               const ram_addr_t sdram_bank_sizes[]);
>>> +void ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
>>> +                         MemoryRegion ram_memories[],
>>> +                         hwaddr ram_bases[], hwaddr ram_sizes[],
>>> +                         const ram_addr_t sdram_bank_sizes[]);
>> 
>> With this change this function does not adjust ram size any more so it may 
>> need to be renamed, e.g. ppc4xx_sdram_banks or something else.
>> 
>> A better patch title may be
>> 
>> ppc/{ppc440_bamboo,sam460x}: drop RAM size fixup
>
> Or split in 2 patches.

This is mainly patching a common function used by both so I think it's OK 
to do in one patch.

Regards,
BALATON Zoltan
Re: [PATCH 66/86] ppc:ppc440_bamboo/sam460ex: drop RAM size fixup
Posted by Igor Mammedov 5 years, 11 months ago
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 12:54:37 +0100 (CET)
BALATON Zoltan <balaton@eik.bme.hu> wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > If user provided non-sense RAM size, board will complain and
> > continue running with max RAM size supported.
> > Also RAM is going to be allocated by generic code, so it won't be
> > possible for board to fix things up for user.
> >
> > Make it error message and exit to force user fix CLI,
> > instead of accepting non-sense CLI values.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h |  9 ++++-----
> > hw/ppc/ppc440_bamboo.c  | 11 ++++-------
> > hw/ppc/ppc4xx_devs.c    | 26 ++++++++++++++++----------
> > hw/ppc/sam460ex.c       |  5 ++---
> > 4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h b/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h
> > index 7d82259..1a28127 100644
> > --- a/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h
> > +++ b/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h
> > @@ -42,11 +42,10 @@ enum {
> > qemu_irq *ppcuic_init (CPUPPCState *env, qemu_irq *irqs,
> >                        uint32_t dcr_base, int has_ssr, int has_vr);
> >
> > -ram_addr_t ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
> > -                               MemoryRegion ram_memories[],
> > -                               hwaddr ram_bases[],
> > -                               hwaddr ram_sizes[],
> > -                               const ram_addr_t sdram_bank_sizes[]);
> > +void ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
> > +                         MemoryRegion ram_memories[],
> > +                         hwaddr ram_bases[], hwaddr ram_sizes[],
> > +                         const ram_addr_t sdram_bank_sizes[]);  
> 
> With this change this function does not adjust ram size any more so it may 
> need to be renamed, e.g. ppc4xx_sdram_banks or something else.
> 
> A better patch title may be
> 
> ppc/{ppc440_bamboo,sam460x}: drop RAM size fixup
> 
> (or without curly braces at your preference).
I'll rename and use this subj as you suggest on v2.

> This is inconvenient for the user because it worked whatever number 
> they've given but now they have to do the math. So it suggests that what 
> you're replacing this with may not support all the existing use cases. If 
> that can't be fixed to allow checking and changing ram size (maybe via a 
> callback in board code similar to above adjust function returning adjusted 
> size) it may be OK to drop this convenience for the sake of cleaning up 
> code elsewhere.

There were few boards that did fix up and in all cases it was to cover up
invalid CLI input.
Creating callback for fixing user mistake doesn't seems to me justified,
I'd much prefer to have a hard error and consistent behavior across all
the boards versus being lax on error checking.

[...]


> > @@ -699,10 +698,19 @@ ram_addr_t ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
> >         }
> >     }
> >
> > -    ram_size -= size_left;
> >     if (size_left) {
> > -        error_report("Truncating memory to %" PRId64 " MiB to fit SDRAM"
> > -                     " controller limits", ram_size / MiB);
> > +        char *s = g_strdup("");
> > +        for (i = 0; sdram_bank_sizes[i]; i++) {
> > +            char *t = g_strdup_printf("%s%" PRIi64 "%s", s, sdram_bank_sizes[i],
> > +                                      sdram_bank_sizes[i + 1] ? " ," : "");
> > +            g_free(s);
> > +            s = t;
> > +        }
> > +        error_report("Invalid RAM size, unable to fit all RAM into RAM banks"
> > +                     " (unassigned RAM: %" PRIi64 ")",  size_left);
> > +        error_report("Supported: %d banks and sizes/bank: %s", nr_banks, s);

Do you have any suggestions how to make error message better?
(maybe do calculation here and dump all valid -m variants instead of "#bank,size/bank")

> > +        g_free(s);
> > +        exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
> >     }
> >
> >     memory_region_allocate_system_memory(ram, NULL, "ppc4xx.sdram", ram_size);
> > @@ -725,8 +733,6 @@ ram_addr_t ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
> >             }
> >         }
> >     }
> > -
> > -    return ram_size;
> > }
> >
> > /*****************************************************************************/
> > diff --git a/hw/ppc/sam460ex.c b/hw/ppc/sam460ex.c
> > index 437e214..f592816 100644
> > --- a/hw/ppc/sam460ex.c
> > +++ b/hw/ppc/sam460ex.c
> > @@ -324,9 +324,8 @@ static void sam460ex_init(MachineState *machine)
> >     /* SDRAM controller */
> >     /* put all RAM on first bank because board has one slot
> >      * and firmware only checks that */
> > -    machine->ram_size = ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(machine->ram_size, 1,
> > -                                   ram_memories, ram_bases, ram_sizes,
> > -                                   ppc460ex_sdram_bank_sizes);
> > +    ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(machine->ram_size, 1, ram_memories, ram_bases,
> > +                        ram_sizes, ppc460ex_sdram_bank_sizes);
> >
> >     /* FIXME: does 460EX have ECC interrupts? */
> >     ppc440_sdram_init(env, SDRAM_NR_BANKS, ram_memories,
> >  
> 


Re: [PATCH 66/86] ppc:ppc440_bamboo/sam460ex: drop RAM size fixup
Posted by BALATON Zoltan 5 years, 11 months ago
On Thu, 2 Jan 2020, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 12:54:37 +0100 (CET)
> BALATON Zoltan <balaton@eik.bme.hu> wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>>> If user provided non-sense RAM size, board will complain and
>>> continue running with max RAM size supported.
>>> Also RAM is going to be allocated by generic code, so it won't be
>>> possible for board to fix things up for user.
>>>
>>> Make it error message and exit to force user fix CLI,
>>> instead of accepting non-sense CLI values.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h |  9 ++++-----
>>> hw/ppc/ppc440_bamboo.c  | 11 ++++-------
>>> hw/ppc/ppc4xx_devs.c    | 26 ++++++++++++++++----------
>>> hw/ppc/sam460ex.c       |  5 ++---
>>> 4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h b/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h
>>> index 7d82259..1a28127 100644
>>> --- a/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h
>>> +++ b/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h
>>> @@ -42,11 +42,10 @@ enum {
>>> qemu_irq *ppcuic_init (CPUPPCState *env, qemu_irq *irqs,
>>>                        uint32_t dcr_base, int has_ssr, int has_vr);
>>>
>>> -ram_addr_t ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
>>> -                               MemoryRegion ram_memories[],
>>> -                               hwaddr ram_bases[],
>>> -                               hwaddr ram_sizes[],
>>> -                               const ram_addr_t sdram_bank_sizes[]);
>>> +void ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
>>> +                         MemoryRegion ram_memories[],
>>> +                         hwaddr ram_bases[], hwaddr ram_sizes[],
>>> +                         const ram_addr_t sdram_bank_sizes[]);
>>
>> With this change this function does not adjust ram size any more so it may
>> need to be renamed, e.g. ppc4xx_sdram_banks or something else.
>>
>> A better patch title may be
>>
>> ppc/{ppc440_bamboo,sam460x}: drop RAM size fixup
>>
>> (or without curly braces at your preference).
> I'll rename and use this subj as you suggest on v2.
>
>> This is inconvenient for the user because it worked whatever number
>> they've given but now they have to do the math. So it suggests that what
>> you're replacing this with may not support all the existing use cases. If
>> that can't be fixed to allow checking and changing ram size (maybe via a
>> callback in board code similar to above adjust function returning adjusted
>> size) it may be OK to drop this convenience for the sake of cleaning up
>> code elsewhere.
>
> There were few boards that did fix up and in all cases it was to cover up
> invalid CLI input.
> Creating callback for fixing user mistake doesn't seems to me justified,
> I'd much prefer to have a hard error and consistent behavior across all
> the boards versus being lax on error checking.
>
> [...]
>
>
>>> @@ -699,10 +698,19 @@ ram_addr_t ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
>>>         }
>>>     }
>>>
>>> -    ram_size -= size_left;
>>>     if (size_left) {
>>> -        error_report("Truncating memory to %" PRId64 " MiB to fit SDRAM"
>>> -                     " controller limits", ram_size / MiB);
>>> +        char *s = g_strdup("");
>>> +        for (i = 0; sdram_bank_sizes[i]; i++) {
>>> +            char *t = g_strdup_printf("%s%" PRIi64 "%s", s, sdram_bank_sizes[i],
>>> +                                      sdram_bank_sizes[i + 1] ? " ," : "");
>>> +            g_free(s);
>>> +            s = t;
>>> +        }
>>> +        error_report("Invalid RAM size, unable to fit all RAM into RAM banks"
>>> +                     " (unassigned RAM: %" PRIi64 ")",  size_left);
>>> +        error_report("Supported: %d banks and sizes/bank: %s", nr_banks, s);
>
> Do you have any suggestions how to make error message better?
> (maybe do calculation here and dump all valid -m variants instead of "#bank,size/bank")

Listing the valid values would certainly help users who don't know what 
the constraints of the SoC or SPD ROMs are (which I think most users don't 
have a clue about and we should not expect them to know). I've also seen 
similar concerns in another response for hppa machines so maybe having a 
callback to allow adjusting user input to board constraints is not a bad 
idea. It's not lax error checking but convenience for the average user 
where board has specific constraints and cannot handle any mem size.

Regards,
BALATON Zoltan

Re: [PATCH 66/86] ppc:ppc440_bamboo/sam460ex: drop RAM size fixup
Posted by Igor Mammedov 5 years, 11 months ago
On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 16:52:50 +0100 (CET)
BALATON Zoltan <balaton@eik.bme.hu> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Jan 2020, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 12:54:37 +0100 (CET)
> > BALATON Zoltan <balaton@eik.bme.hu> wrote:  
> >> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019, Igor Mammedov wrote:  
> >>> If user provided non-sense RAM size, board will complain and
> >>> continue running with max RAM size supported.
> >>> Also RAM is going to be allocated by generic code, so it won't be
> >>> possible for board to fix things up for user.
> >>>
> >>> Make it error message and exit to force user fix CLI,
> >>> instead of accepting non-sense CLI values.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h |  9 ++++-----
> >>> hw/ppc/ppc440_bamboo.c  | 11 ++++-------
> >>> hw/ppc/ppc4xx_devs.c    | 26 ++++++++++++++++----------
> >>> hw/ppc/sam460ex.c       |  5 ++---
> >>> 4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h b/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h
> >>> index 7d82259..1a28127 100644
> >>> --- a/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h
> >>> +++ b/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h
> >>> @@ -42,11 +42,10 @@ enum {
> >>> qemu_irq *ppcuic_init (CPUPPCState *env, qemu_irq *irqs,
> >>>                        uint32_t dcr_base, int has_ssr, int has_vr);
> >>>
> >>> -ram_addr_t ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
> >>> -                               MemoryRegion ram_memories[],
> >>> -                               hwaddr ram_bases[],
> >>> -                               hwaddr ram_sizes[],
> >>> -                               const ram_addr_t sdram_bank_sizes[]);
> >>> +void ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
> >>> +                         MemoryRegion ram_memories[],
> >>> +                         hwaddr ram_bases[], hwaddr ram_sizes[],
> >>> +                         const ram_addr_t sdram_bank_sizes[]);  
> >>
> >> With this change this function does not adjust ram size any more so it may
> >> need to be renamed, e.g. ppc4xx_sdram_banks or something else.
> >>
> >> A better patch title may be
> >>
> >> ppc/{ppc440_bamboo,sam460x}: drop RAM size fixup
> >>
> >> (or without curly braces at your preference).  
> > I'll rename and use this subj as you suggest on v2.
> >  
> >> This is inconvenient for the user because it worked whatever number
> >> they've given but now they have to do the math. So it suggests that what
> >> you're replacing this with may not support all the existing use cases. If
> >> that can't be fixed to allow checking and changing ram size (maybe via a
> >> callback in board code similar to above adjust function returning adjusted
> >> size) it may be OK to drop this convenience for the sake of cleaning up
> >> code elsewhere.  
> >
> > There were few boards that did fix up and in all cases it was to cover up
> > invalid CLI input.
> > Creating callback for fixing user mistake doesn't seems to me justified,
> > I'd much prefer to have a hard error and consistent behavior across all
> > the boards versus being lax on error checking.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >  
> >>> @@ -699,10 +698,19 @@ ram_addr_t ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
> >>>         }
> >>>     }
> >>>
> >>> -    ram_size -= size_left;
> >>>     if (size_left) {
> >>> -        error_report("Truncating memory to %" PRId64 " MiB to fit SDRAM"
> >>> -                     " controller limits", ram_size / MiB);
> >>> +        char *s = g_strdup("");
> >>> +        for (i = 0; sdram_bank_sizes[i]; i++) {
> >>> +            char *t = g_strdup_printf("%s%" PRIi64 "%s", s, sdram_bank_sizes[i],
> >>> +                                      sdram_bank_sizes[i + 1] ? " ," : "");
> >>> +            g_free(s);
> >>> +            s = t;
> >>> +        }
> >>> +        error_report("Invalid RAM size, unable to fit all RAM into RAM banks"
> >>> +                     " (unassigned RAM: %" PRIi64 ")",  size_left);
> >>> +        error_report("Supported: %d banks and sizes/bank: %s", nr_banks, s);  
> >
> > Do you have any suggestions how to make error message better?
> > (maybe do calculation here and dump all valid -m variants instead of "#bank,size/bank")  
> 
> Listing the valid values would certainly help users who don't know what 
> the constraints of the SoC or SPD ROMs are (which I think most users don't 
> have a clue about and we should not expect them to know). I've also seen 
ok, I'll go ahead with it.

> similar concerns in another response for hppa machines so maybe having a 
> callback to allow adjusting user input to board constraints is not a bad 
> idea. It's not lax error checking but convenience for the average user 
> where board has specific constraints and cannot handle any mem size.
It could be usefull to generalize and probably introspect valid/supported
RAM sizes but I doubt it would be easy to sell a callback for fixing up
invalid user input vs just a hard error.
Anyways it looks out of scope of this series and could be done on top if
there is demand for that.

> Regards,
> BALATON Zoltan
> 


Re: [PATCH 66/86] ppc:ppc440_bamboo/sam460ex: drop RAM size fixup
Posted by Igor Mammedov 5 years, 11 months ago
On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 16:52:50 +0100 (CET)
BALATON Zoltan <balaton@eik.bme.hu> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Jan 2020, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 12:54:37 +0100 (CET)
> > BALATON Zoltan <balaton@eik.bme.hu> wrote:  
> >> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019, Igor Mammedov wrote:  
> >>> If user provided non-sense RAM size, board will complain and
> >>> continue running with max RAM size supported.
> >>> Also RAM is going to be allocated by generic code, so it won't be
> >>> possible for board to fix things up for user.
> >>>
> >>> Make it error message and exit to force user fix CLI,
> >>> instead of accepting non-sense CLI values.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h |  9 ++++-----
> >>> hw/ppc/ppc440_bamboo.c  | 11 ++++-------
> >>> hw/ppc/ppc4xx_devs.c    | 26 ++++++++++++++++----------
> >>> hw/ppc/sam460ex.c       |  5 ++---
> >>> 4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h b/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h
> >>> index 7d82259..1a28127 100644
> >>> --- a/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h
> >>> +++ b/include/hw/ppc/ppc4xx.h
> >>> @@ -42,11 +42,10 @@ enum {
> >>> qemu_irq *ppcuic_init (CPUPPCState *env, qemu_irq *irqs,
> >>>                        uint32_t dcr_base, int has_ssr, int has_vr);
> >>>
> >>> -ram_addr_t ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
> >>> -                               MemoryRegion ram_memories[],
> >>> -                               hwaddr ram_bases[],
> >>> -                               hwaddr ram_sizes[],
> >>> -                               const ram_addr_t sdram_bank_sizes[]);
> >>> +void ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
> >>> +                         MemoryRegion ram_memories[],
> >>> +                         hwaddr ram_bases[], hwaddr ram_sizes[],
> >>> +                         const ram_addr_t sdram_bank_sizes[]);  
> >>
> >> With this change this function does not adjust ram size any more so it may
> >> need to be renamed, e.g. ppc4xx_sdram_banks or something else.
> >>
> >> A better patch title may be
> >>
> >> ppc/{ppc440_bamboo,sam460x}: drop RAM size fixup
> >>
> >> (or without curly braces at your preference).  
> > I'll rename and use this subj as you suggest on v2.
> >  
> >> This is inconvenient for the user because it worked whatever number
> >> they've given but now they have to do the math. So it suggests that what
> >> you're replacing this with may not support all the existing use cases. If
> >> that can't be fixed to allow checking and changing ram size (maybe via a
> >> callback in board code similar to above adjust function returning adjusted
> >> size) it may be OK to drop this convenience for the sake of cleaning up
> >> code elsewhere.  
> >
> > There were few boards that did fix up and in all cases it was to cover up
> > invalid CLI input.
> > Creating callback for fixing user mistake doesn't seems to me justified,
> > I'd much prefer to have a hard error and consistent behavior across all
> > the boards versus being lax on error checking.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >  
> >>> @@ -699,10 +698,19 @@ ram_addr_t ppc4xx_sdram_adjust(ram_addr_t ram_size, int nr_banks,
> >>>         }
> >>>     }
> >>>
> >>> -    ram_size -= size_left;
> >>>     if (size_left) {
> >>> -        error_report("Truncating memory to %" PRId64 " MiB to fit SDRAM"
> >>> -                     " controller limits", ram_size / MiB);
> >>> +        char *s = g_strdup("");
> >>> +        for (i = 0; sdram_bank_sizes[i]; i++) {
> >>> +            char *t = g_strdup_printf("%s%" PRIi64 "%s", s, sdram_bank_sizes[i],
> >>> +                                      sdram_bank_sizes[i + 1] ? " ," : "");
> >>> +            g_free(s);
> >>> +            s = t;
> >>> +        }
> >>> +        error_report("Invalid RAM size, unable to fit all RAM into RAM banks"
> >>> +                     " (unassigned RAM: %" PRIi64 ")",  size_left);
> >>> +        error_report("Supported: %d banks and sizes/bank: %s", nr_banks, s);  
> >
> > Do you have any suggestions how to make error message better?
> > (maybe do calculation here and dump all valid -m variants instead of "#bank,size/bank")  
> 
> Listing the valid values would certainly help users who don't know what 
> the constraints of the SoC or SPD ROMs are (which I think most users don't 
> have a clue about and we should not expect them to know).
I gave it a shot, in case of bamboo board it ends up with huge ~80 entries list,

Perhaps it might be better to avoid combinatorial explosion and keep managable

       error_report("Supported: %d banks and sizes/bank: %s", nr_banks, s);
       error_report("Invalid RAM size, unable to fit all RAM into RAM banks"
                    " (unassigned RAM: %" PRIi64 ")",  size_left);

   maybe also print relative to user provided value, nearest valid "above" and "below" sizes,
   instead of remainder.


[...]
> 
> Regards,
> BALATON Zoltan
>