Opened 6 years ago

Closed 6 years ago

Last modified 6 years ago

#786 closed defect (fixed)

Sysinfo mapping of OFW properties is broken

Reported by: Jiri Svoboda Owned by:
Priority: major Milestone: 0.9.1
Component: helenos/unspecified Version: mainline
Keywords: Cc:
Blocker for: Depends on:
See also:


It appears OFW device nodes are mapped to sysinfo nodes having names like firmware..something (note the double period). An attempt to dump the node properties via userspace sysinfo command (either sysinfo firmware.something or sysinfo firmware..something) fails, saying the property does not exist.

Change History (7)

comment:1 by Jakub Jermář, 6 years ago

On ppc32, I can successfully dump firmware..packages.cmdline and firmware..aliases. The confusion seems to stem from the fact that the root of the ofw tree is called (empty name) and sysinfo uses . as a separator. So we need to type firmware..aliases to name ofw's /aliases.

comment:2 by Jiri Svoboda, 6 years ago

Not sure why I wasn't able to dump it before, it works for me now, e.g. firmware..aliases. Would it make sense to change the mapping to omit the extra period, e.g. just firmware.aliases? Or is it possible for the root node to have non-empty name?

comment:3 by Jakub Jermář, 6 years ago

Resolution: fixed
Status: newclosed

I fixed this in commit 063a364794dc48510948ecc3cf9196cd0a7cee9e by renaming the root node to 'ofw'.

comment:4 by Jakub Jermář, 6 years ago

Milestone: 0.9.1

comment:5 by Jiri Svoboda, 6 years ago

Thanks. What I meant was, if IEEE 1275 allowed the root node to have non-empty name, thus possibly creating a situation where we actually wanted to reflect the actual name of the node in the sysinfo tree. I guess the answer is no?

comment:6 by Jakub Jermář, 6 years ago

The change I made would create 'firmware.foobar' for an OFW root node called 'foobar'. The difference is the non-empty name. For consistency, we might change this to create 'firmware.foobar.ofw-foobar', not sure.

comment:7 by Jiri Svoboda, 6 years ago

The way I read the standard the root node can't have non-empty name, so I think we're okay.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.