Re: [PATCH v3 06/15] Introduce structured tag value definition
From: David Gibson <hidden>
Date: 2026-09-10 05:34:04
Also in:
lkml
On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 10:31:37AM +0200, Herve Codina wrote: [snip]
+#define FDT_TAG_CAN_SKIP(tag_data, tag_id) \ + (FDT_TAG_STRUCTURED | FDT_TAG_SKIP_SAFE | tag_data | tag_id) + +/* Tests reserved tags */ +#define FDT_TEST_NONE_CAN_SKIP FDT_TAG_CAN_SKIP(FDT_TAG_DATA_NONE, 0) +#define FDT_TEST_1CELL_CAN_SKIP FDT_TAG_CAN_SKIP(FDT_TAG_DATA_1CELL, 0) +#define FDT_TEST_2CELLS_CAN_SKIP FDT_TAG_CAN_SKIP(FDT_TAG_DATA_2CELLS, 0) +#define FDT_TEST_VARLEN_CAN_SKIP FDT_TAG_CAN_SKIP(FDT_TAG_DATA_VARLEN, 0) +#define FDT_TEST_NONE_NO_SKIP FDT_TAG_NO_SKIP(FDT_TAG_DATA_NONE, 0)
Sorry, missed until I saw the later treegen changes that this is
defining some specific tag values.
Given that, "Tests reserved tags" needs to be expanded to better
explain what these tags are for - what should readers do upon
encountering them, when should writers use it ("never, unless you're a
test case" is acceptable).
It might be worth reserving a whole range of tag values for tests /
documentation / experimentation, rather than just a handful of
specific values.
--
David Gibson (he or they) | 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 Attachments
- signature.asc [application/pgp-signature] 833 bytes