Re: [PATCH 0/3] Synchronize DTC to 1.7.2

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1454 bytes --]

On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 10:31:24PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 11/17/25 7:40 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> 
> Hello Tom,
> 
> > > > , and then
> > > > every follow-up location doesn't need to perform that (or possibly many
> > > > other as well) validation checks. My impression from when I looked at
> > > > the code last, a few year ago, was that it was designed with "validate
> > > > with most? every? function" and we would be happy enough with "validate
> > > > once".
> > > 
> > > If you can make that assumption -- that whatever we feed into libfdt is
> > > valid -- then we can simply patch out can_assume() .
> > 
> > Maybe the question I have then is, why isn't can_assume being optimized
> > out at compile time, if we set the mask right. Makes me wonder if
> > there's not something to fix upstream too. Or maybe we need to change
> > the default to higher than 0?
> 
> Maybe because the mask is set differently for U-Boot and SPL , see:
> 
> CONFIG_SPL_OF_LIBFDT_ASSUME_MASK=0xff
> CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT_ASSUME_MASK=0x0

Right. We might want a different default for full U-Boot at this point
(not assume perfect, but also not assume nothing). But still, I would
have hoped SPL growth was smaller, but perhaps I just need to
re-evaluate things. Let me know when you have a next iteration of
everything branch somewhere and I'll run the size growth build before
you post if you like and we can iterate on it.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]