Re: libfdt: More tests of NOP handling behaviour

[Jerry Van Baren <gvb.linuxppc.dev@gmail.com>]

Jon Loeliger wrote:
> So, like, the other day David Gibson mumbled:
>> In light of the recently discovered bug with NOP handling, this adds
>> some more testcases for NOP handling.  Specifically, it adds a helper
>> program which will add a NOP tag after every existing tag in a dtb,
>> and runs the standard battery of tests over trees mangled in this way.
>>
>> For now, this does not add a NOP at the very beginning of the
>> structure block.  This causes problems for libfdt at present, because
>> we assume in many places that the root node's BEGIN_NODE tag is at
>> offset 0.  I'm still contemplating what to do about this (with one
>> option being simply to declare such dtbs invalid).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> 
> Applied.
> 
> BTW, declaring DTBs with BEGIN_NODES not at offset 0
> as invalid seems like a fine choice to me.
> 
> jdl

FWIIW, I vote ditto on declaring DTBs with BEGIN_NODES not at offset 0 
as invalid.  The root being at offset 0 assumption is pretty well 
entrenched and I cannot think of any reason to change it that would be 
worth the effort.

Best regards,
gvb