On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 at 15:11, John Keeping wrote:
>
> The behaviour of dev_read_addr_size() is surprising as it does not
> handle #address-cells and #size-cells but instead hardcodes the values
> based on sizeof(fdt_addr_t).
>
> This is different from dev_read_addr_size_index() and
>
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 at 15:11, John Keeping wrote:
>
> The behaviour of dev_read_addr_size() is surprising as it does not
> handle #address-cells and #size-cells but instead hardcodes the values
> based on sizeof(fdt_addr_t).
>
> This is different from dev_read_addr_size_index() and
>
The behaviour of dev_read_addr_size() is surprising as it does not
handle #address-cells and #size-cells but instead hardcodes the values
based on sizeof(fdt_addr_t).
This is different from dev_read_addr_size_index() and
dev_read_addr_size_name() both of which do read the cell sizes from the
3 matches
Mail list logo
