On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 10:31:24PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 11/17/25 7:40 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > Hello Tom, > > > > > , and then > > > > every follow-up location doesn't need to perform that (or possibly many > > > > other as well) validation checks. My impression from when I looked at > > > > the code last, a few year ago, was that it was designed with "validate > > > > with most? every? function" and we would be happy enough with "validate > > > > once". > > > > > > If you can make that assumption -- that whatever we feed into libfdt is > > > valid -- then we can simply patch out can_assume() . > > > > Maybe the question I have then is, why isn't can_assume being optimized > > out at compile time, if we set the mask right. Makes me wonder if > > there's not something to fix upstream too. Or maybe we need to change > > the default to higher than 0? > > Maybe because the mask is set differently for U-Boot and SPL , see: > > CONFIG_SPL_OF_LIBFDT_ASSUME_MASK=0xff > CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT_ASSUME_MASK=0x0
Right. We might want a different default for full U-Boot at this point (not assume perfect, but also not assume nothing). But still, I would have hoped SPL growth was smaller, but perhaps I just need to re-evaluate things. Let me know when you have a next iteration of everything branch somewhere and I'll run the size growth build before you post if you like and we can iterate on it. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
