On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 11:49:28AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > On Tue, May 26 2026, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The current upstream method of having a function omit various tests is > > to use the can_assume macro. Take the logic we had previously been using > > and instead make it a can_assume(PERFECT) check within fdt_check_full > > itself. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <[email protected]> > > --- > > I will be submitting this change upstream and will follow up if needed > > here. > > --- > > scripts/dtc/libfdt/fdt_check.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/scripts/dtc/libfdt/fdt_check.c b/scripts/dtc/libfdt/fdt_check.c > > index a21ebbc9239f..7509c11d8580 100644 > > --- a/scripts/dtc/libfdt/fdt_check.c > > +++ b/scripts/dtc/libfdt/fdt_check.c > > @@ -21,6 +21,8 @@ int fdt_check_full(const void *fdt, size_t bufsize) > > const char *propname; > > bool expect_end = false; > > > > + if (can_assume(PERFECT)) > > + return 0; > > Is this right? I think that would require changing can_assume() to test > if the given mask is a subset of FDT_ASSUME_MASK, not merely intersects > it. When called with a single-bit mask, those are of course the same > thing. > > Because as-is, can_assume(PERFECT) is true if FDT_ASSUME_MASK has any > non-zero value, but I don't think FDT_ASSUME_MASK=ASSUME_LATEST, for > example, should imply "perfect".
Honestly (and I mentioned this to David in his reply on the devicetree-compiler list) the usage of the mask today is either 0xff or 0x0 and nothing in between. Which means yes, I wonder a little about the can_assume macro as opposed to how the mask was used originally. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
