[U-Boot] [PATCH] cmd: fdt: Fix fdt address information after the movement

[Simon Glass]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 at 14:22, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Marek,
>
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 at 08:02, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/17/2018 01:13 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 at 12:44, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> From: Hiroyuki Yokoyama <hiroyuki.yokoyama.vx at renesas.com>
> > >>
> > >> This patch fixes the address information of fdt.
> > >>
> > >> wrong case:
> > >>  => fdt addr 0x48000000
> > >>  => fdt move 0x48000000 0x41000000 0xa000
> > >>  => fdt addr
> > >> The address of the fdt is 48000000
> > >>
> > >> Active address in this case is 0x41000000.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Hiroyuki Yokoyama <hiroyuki.yokoyama.vx at renesas.com>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas at gmail.com>
> > >> Cc: Hiroyuki Yokoyama <hiroyuki.yokoyama.vx at renesas.com>
> > >> Cc: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <iwamatsu at nigauri.org>
> > >> Cc: Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou at konsulko.com>
> > >> ---
> > >>  cmd/fdt.c | 2 +-
> > >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >>
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > >
> > > Also, the cast to struct fdt_header * in the code above looks wrong. I
> > > think it should have a map_sysmem() in there.
> >
> > Rather than that, I wonder, what would happen if we put FDT above 32bit
> > address space and used the 'fdt' command ? Would that work or not ? I
> > suspect the later ...
>
> I don't know. I'm looking forward to having tests for all these cases one day.

Applied to u-boot-dm, thanks!