On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 12:43:18 +0200, Caleb Connolly wrote:
> The fdt_node_check_compatible() function returns 0 on success which is
> pretty confusing, and we were using it wrong!
>
> Invert the condition check and refactor things to be more readable.
>
> Additionally, add the check for the RB1
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 12:43:18 +0200, Caleb Connolly wrote:
> The fdt_node_check_compatible() function returns 0 on success which is
> pretty confusing, and we were using it wrong!
>
> Invert the condition check and refactor things to be more readable.
>
> Additionally, add the check for the RB1
On 3/31/25 13:43, Caleb Connolly via groups.io wrote:
The fdt_node_check_compatible() function returns 0 on success which is
pretty confusing, and we were using it wrong!
Invert the condition check and refactor things to be more readable.
Additionally, add the check for the RB1 which needs the
Hey Caleb,
On Monday, 31 March 2025 at 12:43, Caleb Connolly
wrote:
>
>
> The fdt_node_check_compatible() function returns 0 on success which is
> pretty confusing, and we were using it wrong!
>
> Invert the condition check and refactor things to be more readable.
>
> Additionally, add the
The fdt_node_check_compatible() function returns 0 on success which is
pretty confusing, and we were using it wrong!
Invert the condition check and refactor things to be more readable.
Additionally, add the check for the RB1 which needs the same fixup as
the RB2.
Reported-by: Sam Day
Fixes: e64
5 matches
Mail list logo