On 25-01-07, Sebastian Groß wrote:
> Hi Marco,
>
> On 2025-01-07 8:37 AM, Marco Felsch wrote:
> > > Since the image is build by uboot's mkimage I would expect the itb's to be
> > > compatible. Or am I missing something?
> > >
> > > Changing the following line in the `its`, ie. its build script
> > > ```
> > > - hash { algo = "${FIT_HASH_ALG}"; };
> > > + hash@1 { algo = "${FIT_HASH_ALG}"; };
> > > ```
> > > made the fit-image work.
> > I can't find this line within the U-Boot src code. Can you provide a
> > link please?
> Sorry for the confusion. I meant the build script within yocto that
> generates the `its` and then the `itb`
Can you give me some pointers please? I've checked the
kernel-fitimage.bbclass in oe-core and which used hash@1 during the
initial commit which was changed to hash-1 later on.
> > > Perhaps another if-clause is required. Or some error message that states
> > > which property/string was searched for,
> > > since there were hashes in the image, but not where barebox expected them.
> > We could search for the legacy single 'hash' node name as well and print
> > a warning that this should be changed.
> I concur!
If we can find a valid source which still uses the old style :)
> Looking at `fit_image_verify_signature` this change might be necessary too
> for `signature`
Same here.
Regards,
Marco
