On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 03:56:43PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 11:09 PM David Gibson > <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 12:30:19PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > In preparation to share the marker related functions, let's move them all > > > out of treeresource.c into dtc.h. Rework the next_type_marker() > > > implementation to use for_each_marker() instead of open coding it. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Applied, thanks. > > I was about to say this never got pushed out. Then I looked at bit > harder and found this gem: > > commit ff3a30c115ad7354689dc7858604356ecb7f9b1c > Author: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> Yikes. I'm not sure how that happened. I must have screwed up some git command during a re-org / rebase. Good news is it postdates the latest tagged version. Bad news is it's committed to a public branch that's not supposed to rebase. The question is, is it worth forcing anyone who pulled HEAD in the interim to do a rebase/repull in order to fix it. > Date: Tue Jul 27 12:30:19 2021 -0600 > > asm: Use .asciz and .ascii instead of .string > > We use the .string pseudo-op both in some of our test assembly files > and in our -Oasm output. We expect this to emit a \0 terminated > string into the .o file. However for certain targets (e.g. HP > PA-RISC) it doesn't include the \0. Use .asciz instead, which > explicitly does what we want. > > There's also one place we can use .ascii (which explicitly emits a > string *without* \0 termination) instead of multiple .byte directives. > > Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > dtc.h | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++- > flattree.c | 6 +++--- > tests/base01.asm | 38 +++++++++++++++++++------------------- > tests/test01.asm | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------- > tests/trees.S | 10 ++++------ > treesource.c | 23 +---------------------- > 6 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 77 deletions(-) > > > Perhaps your own commits should be sent to the list as well... Alas, I don't think that would help here. If there were a problem with the actual patch content you'd have a point. However, that error would have been introduced during commit / merge / git shenannigans, rather than while writing the patch, so list review wouldn't help. > Are you going to apply or review the rest of my series that's been > sitting on the list for 2 months now? I'm sorry. I'm moving onto new projects and it's hard to find time to keep on top of this. Plus, the fact that I still consider the whole yaml based schema stuff a fundamentally misguided design doesn't help with my enthusiasm. I've merged one and reviewed the rest now. -- 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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
