Hi Christian,
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:26:56AM +0200, Christian Mauderer wrote:
> According to the U-Boot documentation for the FIT file format, the load
> and entry have to be allways defined for a "kernel" or "standalone".
> But Barebox ignored the parameters. That changes with this patch.
>
> For backward compatibility the default address is still used for images
> without `load` or `entry`.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Mauderer <christian.mauderer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> common/blspec.c | 1 +
> common/boot.c | 1 +
> common/bootm.c | 24 ++++++++++-
> common/image-fit.c | 97 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> include/image-fit.h | 3 ++
> 5 files changed, 110 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/common/blspec.c b/common/blspec.c
> index 7fb62d310..050aed26a 100644
> --- a/common/blspec.c
> +++ b/common/blspec.c
> @@ -142,6 +142,7 @@ static int blspec_boot(struct bootentry *be, int verbose, int dryrun)
> globalvar_set_match("bootm.initrd", "");
>
> bootm_data_init_defaults(&data);
> + data.os_entry = 0;
You set data.os_entry explicitly to 0 here...
>
> devicetree = blspec_entry_var_get(entry, "devicetree");
> initrd = blspec_entry_var_get(entry, "initrd");
> diff --git a/common/boot.c b/common/boot.c
> index dcbe5cc2e..93ac1612d 100644
> --- a/common/boot.c
> +++ b/common/boot.c
> @@ -104,6 +104,7 @@ static int bootscript_boot(struct bootentry *entry, int verbose, int dryrun)
>
> bootm_data_init_defaults(&data);
>
> + data.os_entry = 0;
...and here. Why is this done? I think these should be left to the
default UIMAGE_SOME_ADDRESS. In the end the kernels bootet from blspec
or a boot script could be a FIT image as well.
> +int fit_get_image_address(struct fit_handle *handle, void *configuration,
> + const char *name, const char *property,
> + unsigned long *address)
> +{
> + struct device_node *image;
> + const char *unit = name;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (!address || !property || !name)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + ret = fit_get_image(handle, configuration, &unit, &image);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + pr_info("%s/%s: ", image->full_name, property);
> +
> + ret = fit_get_address(image, property, address);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + pr_cont("<not found>\n");
> + else
> + pr_cont("0x%lx\n", *address);
pr_cont() doesn't work well in barebox and should be avoided.
Also I think this function shouldn't print anything, the caller should
if it wishes to.
Otherwise the patch looks fine to me.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
