From: Matthias Schiffer <matthias.schiffer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
The examples in the U-boot docs use "hash-N" as the name for hash nodes.
It seems "hash@N" was used instead at some point during the development of
the FIT format and "hash-N" is more correct; support for "hash@N" is
preserved for backward compatibility.
Signed-off-by: Matthias Schiffer <matthias.schiffer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
common/image-fit.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/common/image-fit.c b/common/image-fit.c
index dfd1fa02c..356c1ae5d 100644
--- a/common/image-fit.c
+++ b/common/image-fit.c
@@ -392,7 +392,9 @@ static int fit_verify_hash(struct fit_handle *handle, struct device_node *image,
ret = -EINVAL;
}
- hash = of_get_child_by_name(image, "hash@1");
+ hash = of_get_child_by_name(image, "hash-1");
+ if (!hash)
+ hash = of_get_child_by_name(image, "hash@1");
if (!hash) {
if (ret)
pr_err("image %s does not have hashes\n",
--
2.17.1
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
