Hi Michal
Apologies for the late reply
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 09:48, Michal Simek michal.simek@amd.com wrote:
On 3/5/24 16:47, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 05:18:42PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
There is no reason to describe u-boot.itb on system without SPL. Pretty much this is cover all systems which are using only boot.bin which contains all images inside.
Signed-off-by: Michal Simek michal.simek@amd.com
board/xilinx/common/board.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/board/xilinx/common/board.c b/board/xilinx/common/board.c index 9641ed307b75..4f38b7d27684 100644 --- a/board/xilinx/common/board.c +++ b/board/xilinx/common/board.c @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ struct efi_fw_image fw_images[] = { .image_index = 1, }, #endif -#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) +#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) && defined(CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME)
What happens if this is defined with CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME="" ?
Your comment is valid but I am not aware about any CONFIG_IS, etc which checks that string is not empty. If name is "" it will return yes and second image is doing to be defined.
But I found handling in the code like this.
36 #ifdef CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE 37 if (strlen(CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE)) {
which can be used in my second patch not to describe second image in set_dfu_alt_info() if string is empty.
Yes, I think that's ok. The problem is that if we merge this as-is, we would have to disable CONFIG_SPL_FS_FAT to make this work, which is a bit misleading
Cheers /Ilias
Thanks, Michal