From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: To: David Gibson Subject: Re: libfdt: a fix but still broken In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:47:35 +1100." <20070223034734.GA18698@localhost.localdomain> References: <45DD9A41.7060900@smiths-aerospace.com> <20070223034734.GA18698@localhost.localdomain> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:08:16 -0600 From: Jon Loeliger Message-Id: Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , So, like, the other day David Gibson mumbled: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 08:27:29AM -0500, Jerry Van Baren wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > > > I have good news and bad news. ;-) The good news is that the > > incompatibility between libfdt and jdl's dtc is that libfdt has the name > > offset and the length of the name switched. booting_without_of.txt says > > the length comes first, so libfdt is in the wrong. > > Ouch. That's.. a very embarrassing bug. Actually, I know where it > came from: I was looking at flat_dt.h from dtc, which also gets this > wrong (but the declaration in question is unused). Of course, I also > wrote flat_dt.h ... > > > The bad news is that, when I fix this, nearly all of the tests fail (but > > they fail the same way for both tree.S and jdl's dtc). I have not > > started on that layer of the onion yet. > > Found it, there was a direct use of the position of the length in > _fdt_next_tag(). Just pushed out a fix for this in the libfdt tree, > along with some other small fixes which I found while tracking this > one down. > > Oh, incidentally, I applied your patch by eye rather than with > patch(1), which was handy, because it appears to have been whitespace > damaged. And amidst all of this, is there an actual DTC change needed? I've not detected one yet, but I'm watching... :-) jdl