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

[Simon Glass]

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.

Regards,
Simon