[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210122031049.u3nmxxzzhue5rniu@vireshk-i7>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 08:40:49 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bill Mills <bill.mills@...aro.org>, anmar.oueja@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 5/5] of: unittest: Statically apply overlays using
fdtoverlay
On 22-01-21, 10:39, David Gibson wrote:
> No, it definitely will not work in general. It might kinda work in a
> few trivial cases, but it absolutely will not do the neccessary
> handling in some cases.
>
> > I
> > did inspect the output dtb (made by merging two overlays) using
> > fdtdump and it looked okay.
>
> Ok.. but if you're using these bizarre messed up "dtbs" that this test
> code seems to be, I don't really trust that tells you much.
I only looked if the changes from the second overlay were present in
the merge and they were. And so I assumed that it must have worked.
What about checking the base dtb for /plugin/; in fdtoverlay and fail
the whole thing in case it is present ? I think it is possible for
people to get confused otherwise, like I did.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists