From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from QMTA04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.40]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9080DDE09 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:23:15 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <47BB7FDB.3050809@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:18:19 -0500 From: Jerry Van Baren MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Loeliger Subject: Re: libfdt: More tests of NOP handling behaviour References: <20080218050925.GH29975@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, David Gibson List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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 > > 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