On 19/04/2024 10:47, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
The struct resource end field is inclusive not exclusive, this is, the
size is (end - start) +1.
", this is," doesn't parse on my end
"i.e" => that is, would be more appropriate I think.
"The struct resource end field is inclusive not exclusive of the size"
which I still think is a confusing statement.
Perhaps something much easier to understand is called for
"The struct resource end field signifies the end address not the
relative offset from the start field i.e size == (end - start) + 1.
Amend the .end field to specify the end address not the relative size
from the offset as is currently given."
Other than that, I think its reasonable to assume the mapping != 0 -
0x100 inclusive.
Please consider updating your commit log and if you do add my
Reviewed-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
bod
