On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 10:35 AM Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 07:07, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Only checking the FDT alignment in fdt_ro_probe_() means that > > fdt_check_header() can pass, but then subsequent API calls fail on > > alignment checks. Let's add an alignment check to fdt_check_header() so > > alignment errors are found up front. > > > > Cc: Tom Rini <trini@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > For background, the new alignment check triggered a crash in the > > linux kernel. Yes, we should fix the error handling, but > > fdt_check_header() shouldn't tell us the FDT is valid only to fail > > later on. > > > > Maybe we should move the check instead, but fdt_ro_probe_() and > > fdt_check_header() already have a lot of the same checks. > > > > libfdt/fdt.c | 4 ++++ > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > At present U-Boot uses a 4-byte alignment, so far as I know, so this > will break things. It was the u-boot folks that wanted this in the first place... Look at the recent commits from Tom and the discussion on the list about them. > Is this because of the need to align the memory-reservation block? But yes, the spec does require some sections to be 8-byte aligned which implies the whole thing has to be. Rob
