Re: [PATCH v3 06/15] Introduce structured tag value definition

[David Gibson]

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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature