Jon Loeliger wrote: > So, like, the other day David Gibson mumbled: >> In light of the recently discovered bug with NOP handling, this adds >> some more testcases for NOP handling. Specifically, it adds a helper >> program which will add a NOP tag after every existing tag in a dtb, >> and runs the standard battery of tests over trees mangled in this way. >> >> For now, this does not add a NOP at the very beginning of the >> structure block. This causes problems for libfdt at present, because >> we assume in many places that the root node's BEGIN_NODE tag is at >> offset 0. I'm still contemplating what to do about this (with one >> option being simply to declare such dtbs invalid). >> >> Signed-off-by: David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Applied. > > BTW, declaring DTBs with BEGIN_NODES not at offset 0 > as invalid seems like a fine choice to me. > > jdl
FWIIW, I vote ditto on declaring DTBs with BEGIN_NODES not at offset 0 as invalid. The root being at offset 0 assumption is pretty well entrenched and I cannot think of any reason to change it that would be worth the effort. Best regards, gvb _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
