From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from phobos.denx.de (phobos.denx.de [85.214.62.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E641CF6497 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2025 00:20:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from h2850616.stratoserver.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4454883FF8; Thu, 20 Nov 2025 01:20:06 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=mailbox.org Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=mailbox.org header.i=@mailbox.org header.b="R+mI64OR"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by phobos.denx.de (Postfix, from userid 109) id 026BF83E40; Thu, 20 Nov 2025 01:20:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from mout-p-101.mailbox.org (mout-p-101.mailbox.org [80.241.56.151]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C58E83F26 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2025 01:20:03 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=mailbox.org Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=marek.vasut@mailbox.org Received: from smtp1.mailbox.org (smtp1.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:b231:465::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-101.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4dBfB90SCsz9tQX; Thu, 20 Nov 2025 01:20:01 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailbox.org; s=mail20150812; t=1763598001; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=BzN/qLV2JRh0MtbJJA6G5hcJG6SCp+G7xhYJf4+UZEU=; b=R+mI64ORhCwZFmUyfnWVmTBcXaYalTxeRqeq3YVg/8dvJ07uCy0twQo04L0PXHBNmFA7i0 Fz3QR4TPyPkBtndqfwmJsvH/j8Hg7M5WKIJ1tMorbxcVN20iFZgee3cEchlJEIEm7dAWle 7GJdU9Nx/IM9Vodf9IbVP/XY8dV1/OaUgCV+vx+BSUsOHCKFx0mQuiGiORmPY3C+yS0i89 5VWvX6FUN/yAaV93VcapemmXawd0+M1H33TL4y5KD6M/8uXmdey6r3CSePiqAERCoRAHJW SjJrOQ+FQ4eVO0VtLRHZ4wXLto2Vbqm1O4Ms2aaGv+R24t4phJkabQLyDEeo4g== Message-ID: <5dd7d2e7-7e1d-432a-b737-ae4dfa2689b2@mailbox.org> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 22:31:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Synchronize DTC to 1.7.2 To: Tom Rini Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de, Adriano Cordova , Andrew Goodbody , Christian Marangi , Heinrich Schuchardt , Ilias Apalodimas , Patrice Chotard , Sam Edwards , Simon Glass References: <20251113122145.949112-1-marek.vasut+renesas@mailbox.org> <20251113175700.GM6688@bill-the-cat> <63d6a47c-99cc-48d1-9d71-869c58e2eb69@mailbox.org> <20251113184917.GN6688@bill-the-cat> <71261c83-0a3e-46b6-a0db-d3587a54d71c@mailbox.org> <20251116141151.GC2125796@bill-the-cat> <11a631a3-644a-4c4f-8b09-7202687a4a90@mailbox.org> <20251117184027.GN2125796@bill-the-cat> Content-Language: en-US From: Marek Vasut In-Reply-To: <20251117184027.GN2125796@bill-the-cat> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MBO-RS-META: uhptc3uro143kq63w1w9c1bry4ah6zdd X-MBO-RS-ID: c37fe3bce4ee2b6a855 X-BeenThere: u-boot@lists.denx.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: U-Boot discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Sender: "U-Boot" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.8 at phobos.denx.de X-Virus-Status: Clean 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