On May 3, 2011, at 5:20 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On Tue, 3 May 2011 10:10:18 -0500 > Kumar Gala <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On May 3, 2011, at 9:41 AM, Timur Tabi wrote: >> >>> On May 3, 2011, at 9:21 AM, Kumar Gala <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> + >>>>> + ft_verify_fdt(*of_flat_tree); >>>> >>>> Do we not want to error out here if verify fails? >>> >>> Maybe. I didn't want a false negative to prevent booting. If the DT is >>> wrong, the kernel won't display any messages, so the warning will be the >>> last thing the user sees anyway. >>> >>> If the consensus is that failure should abort, then I can add that. I >>> don't have a strong preference either way. >>>> >> >> I would think that a verify of this form should be considered as bad as not >> passing a checksum verification. > > This seems to have a higher potential for false positives than a checksum.
My feeling is the feature should not have false positives, the goal should be to be as good as a checksum. - k _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
