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

[David Gibson]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 09:53:39AM +0200, Herve Codina wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2026 19:41:42 +1000
> David Gibson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> ...
> > > > > +/* 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)    
> > > > 
> ...
> 
> > > 
> > > /*
> > >  * Tests reserved tags
> > >  *
> > >  * A TAG_ID range in "structured tags" is reserved to tests tags.
> > >  * This tests reserved range is from tag_id 0 to tag_id 0x100.
> > >  *
> > >  * When those tags are encountered they should be considered as "unknown"
> > >  * tags and rules related to "unknown" tags must be followed.
> > >  *
> > >  * Readers should skip them or fail depending on the SKIP_SAFE flag. Writers
> > >  * should never use those tags. Their usage is only acceptable in test cases.
> > >  */
> > > 
> > > Is it ok?  
> > 
> > I'd probably put the reserved range up high somewhere rather than
> > starting at 0.  Otherwise it looks good.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Ok I will move the reserved range at an higher area and probable the
> highest possible area.

Sounds good.

> Will choose also the highest possible value for FDT_TEST_NONE_NO_SKIP
> Indeed, this one is a non-skippable tag and so should use "old style"
> tag.

With non-skippable new-style tags no longer being a thing, do you even
need this tag and test?

-- 
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