On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Gerald Van Baren <gvb.ub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The code has one pre-existing weakness that bothers me: if there is > something following the FDT blob, it will get overwritten by the > increased blob. One way around this would be to malloc() a new memory > space and move and expand the blob to the new space. The first time > this was done, the original blob should not be free()ed since it wasn't > malloc()ed, but the second and subsequent times it should be free()ed. But then how does the caller know where the new blob is? When I call fdt_increase_size(), I pass it the address of a blob that I'm modifying. After the function returns, my value of 'fdt' is no longer valid. > I've added this to your patch, but have *NOT* execution tested it. Does > this addition (a) make sense and (b) work? I was expecting the caller of fdt_increase_size() to know that the space after the fdt is available. -- Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
