On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 at 14:22, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi Marek, > > On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 at 08:02, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 11/17/2018 01:13 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > > > On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 at 12:44, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> From: Hiroyuki Yokoyama <hiroyuki.yokoyama...@renesas.com> > > >> > > >> This patch fixes the address information of fdt. > > >> > > >> wrong case: > > >> => fdt addr 0x48000000 > > >> => fdt move 0x48000000 0x41000000 0xa000 > > >> => fdt addr > > >> The address of the fdt is 48000000 > > >> > > >> Active address in this case is 0x41000000. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Hiroyuki Yokoyama <hiroyuki.yokoyama...@renesas.com> > > >> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+rene...@gmail.com> > > >> Cc: Hiroyuki Yokoyama <hiroyuki.yokoyama...@renesas.com> > > >> Cc: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <iwama...@nigauri.org> > > >> Cc: Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.anton...@konsulko.com> > > >> --- > > >> cmd/fdt.c | 2 +- > > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > >> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > > > Also, the cast to struct fdt_header * in the code above looks wrong. I > > > think it should have a map_sysmem() in there. > > > > Rather than that, I wonder, what would happen if we put FDT above 32bit > > address space and used the 'fdt' command ? Would that work or not ? I > > suspect the later ... > > I don't know. I'm looking forward to having tests for all these cases one day.
Applied to u-boot-dm, thanks! _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
