On 08/06/2022 16.18, eugen.hris...@microchip.com wrote:
> On 5/19/22 3:16 PM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> On 19/05/2022 13.50, Aswath Govindraju wrote:
>>
>>> Understood, thanks for the explanation. I am good with this patch.
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Aswath Govindraju
>>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> For
On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 11:10:43AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> Asking if the alias we found actually points at the device tree node
> we passed in (in the guise of its offset from blob) can be done simply
> by asking if the fdt_path_offset() of the alias' path is identical to
> offset.
>
>
On 19/05/2022 13.50, Aswath Govindraju wrote:
> Understood, thanks for the explanation. I am good with this patch.
>
> Acked-by: Aswath Govindraju
>
Thanks.
For completeness, to expand on this:
>> it's somewhat fragile to rely on (at least one of) the
>> nodes in question to even have a
Hi Rasmus,
On 19/05/22 16:58, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 19/05/2022 12.41, Aswath Govindraju wrote:
>> Hi Rasmus,
>>
>> On 19/05/22 14:40, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>>> Asking if the alias we found actually points at the device tree node
>>> we passed in (in the guise of its offset from blob) can
On 19/05/2022 12.41, Aswath Govindraju wrote:
> Hi Rasmus,
>
> On 19/05/22 14:40, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> Asking if the alias we found actually points at the device tree node
>> we passed in (in the guise of its offset from blob) can be done simply
>> by asking if the fdt_path_offset() of the
Hi Rasmus,
On 19/05/22 14:40, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> Asking if the alias we found actually points at the device tree node
> we passed in (in the guise of its offset from blob) can be done simply
> by asking if the fdt_path_offset() of the alias' path is identical to
> offset.
>
> In fact, the
6 matches
Mail list logo
