On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 09:47:40AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> For better or worse libfdt recent grew a lot of code that checks the
> validity of the device tree in great detail. When using unsigned or
> unverified data this makes things safer, but it does add to code size.
>
> Add some controls t
On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 09:47:40AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> For better or worse libfdt recent grew a lot of code that checks the
> validity of the device tree in great detail. When using unsigned or
> unverified data this makes things safer, but it does add to code size.
>
> Add some controls
On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 12:49:28PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Heinrich,
>
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 at 12:06, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> >
> > On 10/27/19 4:47 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > For better or worse libfdt recent grew a lot of code that checks the
> > > validity of the device tree in
Hi Heinrich,
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 at 12:06, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>
> On 10/27/19 4:47 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > For better or worse libfdt recent grew a lot of code that checks the
> > validity of the device tree in great detail. When using unsigned or
> > unverified data this makes things
On 10/27/19 4:47 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
For better or worse libfdt recent grew a lot of code that checks the
validity of the device tree in great detail. When using unsigned or
unverified data this makes things safer, but it does add to code size.
Add some controls to select the trade-off betwee
For better or worse libfdt recent grew a lot of code that checks the
validity of the device tree in great detail. When using unsigned or
unverified data this makes things safer, but it does add to code size.
Add some controls to select the trade-off between safety and code size.
Signed-off-by: Si
6 matches
Mail list logo