On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 08:40:49AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > 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.
/plugin/ doesn't exist in the dtb, only in the dts. From the dtb
encoding point of view, there's no difference between a dtb and a
dtbo, a dtbo is just a dtb that follows some conventions for its
content.
If we were doing this from scratch, it would be better for dtbos to
have a different magic number from regular dtbs. I think I actually
suggested that sometime in the past, but by the time that came up,
dtbos were already in pretty widespread use with the existing format.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
