Hi Keerthy, On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 at 21:39, Keerthy <j-keer...@ti.com> wrote: > > > > On Thursday 03 January 2019 11:44 PM, s...@google.com wrote: > > On 12/21/18 9:24 AM, Keerthy wrote: > >> fix up fdtdec_get_addr_size to use fdtdec_get_addr_size_auto_noparent > >> so that the address cells and size cells are obtained from the > >> parent instead of going by the fixed length. > > > > This patch makes perfect sense to me. However, I am worried about the > > potential existence of code that assumes the current fixed-size logic; > > in the past when fixing similar issues like this we've often run into > > code that was use "get addr" functions when it should have been using > > "get u32" functions and similar, which then broke when we fixed the > > implementation to do the right thing. I guess we should still apply the > > patch, and fix up any fallout as it appears. > > Thanks Simon!
Unfortunately this breaks the tests (make qcheck). Can you please take a look? Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
