Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] riscv_load_fdt() semantics change

[Conor Dooley]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 10:52:16AM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> After discussions in the previous version, where we ended up discovering
> the details of why the current riscv_load_fdt() works with the Microchip
> Icicle Kit board almost by accident, I decided to change how
> riscv_compute_fdt_addr() (the FDT address calculation from
> riscv_load_fdt()) operates. 
> 
> Instead of relying on premises that the Icicle Kit board can't hold
> right from start, since dram_base + mem_size will never be contained in
> a contiguous RAM area, change the FDT address calculation to also
> receive the bondaries of the DRAM block that the board guarantees that
> it's not sparse. With this extra information we're able to make a more
> consistent FDT address calculation that will cover all existing cases we
> have today.

The "test" case that fail before, is now back passing again. Thanks
Daniel!

Tested-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature