From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: davem@davemloft.net (David Miller) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 15:17:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: kirkwood: proper retain MAC address workaround on DT ethernet In-Reply-To: <1369691406.3557.35.camel@pasglop> References: <1369655404.3557.33.camel@pasglop> <2255648.0KEmXfjCx5@wuerfel> <1369691406.3557.35.camel@pasglop> Message-ID: <20130527.151744.1526437556583356156.davem@davemloft.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 07:50:06 +1000 > On Mon, 2013-05-27 at 14:47 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Monday 27 May 2013 21:50:04 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> > However, that wouldn't help much with the allocation/leak problem, >> > though at least it would be easier to use. It could also *try* to re-use >> > the current allocation if the new content is of smaller or equal size. >> >> I thought that dtc tried to aggressively save space by folding identical >> strings. If you tried to reuse a property that had its contents shared >> with another one, you would get interesting results I guess. > > It used to be only property names, unless that has changed in recent > dtc. But that's a good point, we probably want a flag in struct property > like we have for nodes, indicating whether it comes from the original > fdt data pool or not. This is similar to what the "OF_IS_DYNAMIC()" thing on sparc indicates.