From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from de01egw01.freescale.net (de01egw01.freescale.net [192.88.165.102]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0B93DDDFA for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 08:06:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from de01smr02.am.mot.com (de01smr02.freescale.net [10.208.0.151]) by de01egw01.freescale.net (8.12.11/de01egw01) with ESMTP id l2EL6eJP020239 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:06:41 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <45F863DF.5050709@freescale.com> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:06:39 -0500 From: Timur Tabi MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Loeliger , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [dtc] Add support for flat device tree format version 17 References: <20070313062240.GA22737@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20070313062240.GA22737@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , David Gibson wrote: > libfdt defined a new version of the flattened device tree format, > version 17. It is backwards compatible with version 16, just adding > an extra header field giving the size of the blob's structure blob. Question: Since the DTB is compatible with V16, then technically U-Boot can work with it. What would happen if U-Boot added some nodes to the DTB, but it didn't update size_dt_struct? Would the value of size_dt_struct still be correct? If not, then does that mean that U-Boot should reject V17 DTBs? -- Timur Tabi Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale