Hi Ahmad, On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:35, Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello Simon, > > On 29.11.23 18:21, Simon Glass wrote: > > Add a script which produces a Flat Image Tree (FIT), a single file > > containing the built kernel and associated devicetree files. > > Compression defaults to gzip which gives a good balance of size and > > performance. > > Thanks for working on this. I think it's useful to have the kernel > generate a FIT image out of the box. More complex use cases are always > free to call mkimage with a custom ITS. > > > > The files compress from about 86MB to 24MB using this approach. > > > > The FIT can be used by bootloaders which support it, such as U-Boot > > and Linuxboot. It permits automatic selection of the correct > > devicetree, matching the compatible string of the running board with > > the closest compatible string in the FIT. There is no need for > > filenames or other workarounds. > > > > Add a 'make image.fit' build target for arm64, as well. > > not that it matters much, but should this maybe called Image.fit > as the other Image types are capitalized too? I missed this comment earlier. I believe Image is intended to refer to a raw image, with the other extensions being compressed versions of these. So I believe it would be confusing for the FIT version to have a capital I. > > > EFI_ZBOOT_PAYLOAD := Image > > EFI_ZBOOT_BFD_TARGET := elf64-littleaarch64 > > EFI_ZBOOT_MACH_TYPE := ARM64 > > diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.lib b/scripts/Makefile.lib > > index 1a965fe68e01..e1c06ca3c847 100644 > > --- a/scripts/Makefile.lib > > +++ b/scripts/Makefile.lib > > @@ -496,6 +496,19 @@ quiet_cmd_uimage = UIMAGE $@ > > -a $(UIMAGE_LOADADDR) -e $(UIMAGE_ENTRYADDR) \ > > -n '$(UIMAGE_NAME)' -d $< $@ > > Doesn't hardcoding a load address and entry address here defeat the point > of having FIT as generic portable image format? > > At least barebox will try to place the kernel image at physical address 0 and > will exit with an error message if no SDRAM is located at that address. > The recommendation in that case is to omit load and entry address altogether > to have barebox find a suitable location, but I see now that the FIT specification > requires a load and entry address. What would happen if U-Boot tries to load this > FIT image on a board that has no DRAM at address 0? > > Please Cc me on subsequent revisions. I am interested in testing that this works for barebox > too. I have added you. Regards, Simon
