On 10/19/20 6:13 PM, Reuben Dowle wrote:
The reverted change linked to some kernel documentation that requires 64- bit alignment. I agree with the alignment requirement.
Im my opinion, there are two things that need to be done:
First is to look at an ALIGNED address for the fdt. A summary inspection of board_fdt_blob_setup() tells us this is done via the "_end" linker symbol.
The linker script can only control padding of the executable, but won't affect the alignment of the fdt that can be appended to this later by mkimage.
Which I've addressed in the second paragraph :)
Second is to put things in the right place. For FIT, the code, as is, is correct, but this alignment is not guaranteed for legacy images. I think somebody mentioned changing the arguments to mkimage to achieve this.
I've tried to fix the first point by aligning the _end symbol (appendix A). Unfortunately, this is causing other build issues that I don't know how to deal with.
Alex
The information in this email communication (inclusive of attachments) is confidential to 4RF Limited and the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), please note that any use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this information or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and that the author accepts no liability for the consequences of any action taken on the basis of the information provided. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and then delete all instances of this email from your system. 4RF Limited will not accept responsibility for any consequences associated with the use of this email (including, but not limited to, damages sustained as a result of any viruses and/or any action or lack of action taken in reliance on it).
Per your instructions, I have deleted this message and all copies of it from my computer.