Hi Keerthy, On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 18:52, J, KEERTHY <j-keer...@ti.com> wrote: > > > > On 1/15/2019 6:23 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > > 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? > > > Simon, > > Can you paste the logs? I am at u-boot master tip and my qcheck seems to > err out. > https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/7Q53TMqxMQ/
You should get the tests running. In this case see README.sandbox. Otherwise any patch you send may break U-Boot. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
