The examples in the U-boot docs use "hash-N" and "signature-N" as the names
for hash/signature nodes. It seems "@N" was used instead at some point
during the development of the FIT format and "-N" is more correct (in fact,
dtc throws warnings when using "@N" without a reg attribute). Support for
the "@N" node names is preserved for backward compatibility.
Signed-off-by: Matthias Schiffer <matthias.schiffer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
v2: add signature-1 in addition to hash-1
common/image-fit.c | 8 ++++++--
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/common/image-fit.c b/common/image-fit.c
index dfd1fa02c..87a55b7e2 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",
@@ -468,7 +470,9 @@ static int fit_image_verify_signature(struct fit_handle *handle,
ret = -EINVAL;
}
- sig_node = of_get_child_by_name(image, "signature@1");
+ sig_node = of_get_child_by_name(image, "signature-1");
+ if (!sig_node)
+ sig_node = of_get_child_by_name(image, "signature@1");
if (!sig_node) {
pr_err("Image %s has no signature\n", image->full_name);
return ret;
--
2.17.1
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
