Dear Stephen Warren, In message <74cdbe0f657a3d45afbb94109fb122ff173f9a5...@hqmail01.nvidia.com> you wrote: > Wolfgang Denk wrote at Tuesday, November 08, 2011 9:07 AM: > > In message <1320164902-24190-1-git-send-email-swar...@nvidia.com> you wrote: > > > image_get_ram_disk() and image_get_kernel() perform operations in a > > > consistent order. Modify image_get_fdt() to do things the same way. > > > This allows a later change to insert some image header manipulations > > > into these three functions in a consistent fashion. > ... > > > @@ -1131,14 +1131,19 @@ static const image_header_t *image_get_fdt(ulong > > > fdt_addr) > > > { > > > const image_header_t *fdt_hdr = (const image_header_t *)fdt_addr; > > > > > > - image_print_contents(fdt_hdr); > > > + if (!image_check_magic(fdt_hdr)) { > > > + fdt_error("fdt header bad magic number\n"); > > > + return NULL; > > > + } > > > > > > - puts(" Verifying Checksum ... "); > > > if (!image_check_hcrc(fdt_hdr)) { > > > fdt_error("fdt header checksum invalid"); > > > return NULL; > > > } > > > > > > + image_print_contents(fdt_hdr); > > > + > > > + puts(" Verifying Checksum ... "); > > > if (!image_check_dcrc(fdt_hdr)) { > > > fdt_error("fdt checksum invalid"); > > > return NULL; ... > > The rule in U-Boot when generating output is to print a message > > before you start an action, and then either print an OK or an error > > message. The reason for this is debug support: if neither an OK nor > > an error comes you know that the test somehow crashed. ... > The new code is exactly the same as the existing image_get_kernel() and > image_get_ramdisk(). Are those wrong? I wouldn't want to fix my patch to > conform to some supposed standard when the existing code that's been > accepted doesn't conform to that standard, or would I be responsible for > fixing up that too?
The new code is different from what was there before. Now we have: 1134 image_print_contents(fdt_hdr); 1135 1136 puts(" Verifying Checksum ... "); 1137 if (!image_check_hcrc(fdt_hdr)) { 1138 fdt_error("fdt header checksum invalid"); 1139 return NULL; 1140 } 1141 1142 if (!image_check_dcrc(fdt_hdr)) { 1143 fdt_error("fdt checksum invalid"); 1144 return NULL; i.e. image_print_contents(fdt_hdr); puts(" Verifying Checksum ... "); image_check_hcrc(fdt_hdr); image_check_dcrc(fdt_hdr) After your patch we have: image_check_magic(); image_check_hcrc() image_print_contents((); puts(" Verifying Checksum ... "); image_check_dcrc(); So before, we have the "Verifying Checksum" before running any of the image_check_*() functions, while with your patch we run two of them before that. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de Intel's new motto: United we stand. Divided we fall! _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot