On Tue, 3 May 2011 10:10:18 -0500 Kumar Gala <ga...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> > On May 3, 2011, at 9:41 AM, Timur Tabi wrote: > > > On May 3, 2011, at 9:21 AM, Kumar Gala <ga...@kernel.crashing.org> 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. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
