
Hi Andreas,
On 27 April 2016 at 01:28, Andreas Bießmann andreas.devel@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
On 23.02.2016 06:55, Simon Glass wrote:
At present FIT images are set up by providing a device tree source file which is a file with a .its extension. We want to support automatically creating this file based on the image supplied to mkimage. This means that even though the final file type is always IH_TYPE_FLATDT, the image inside may be something else.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
Changes in v2:
- Always expect the final argument to be the image file
diff --git a/tools/mkimage.c b/tools/mkimage.c index b8293f6..2fd1f0b 100644 --- a/tools/mkimage.c +++ b/tools/mkimage.c @@ -112,10 +112,14 @@ static void usage(const char *msg) static void process_args(int argc, char **argv) { char *ptr;
int type = IH_TYPE_INVALID;
char *datafile = NULL;
int expecting; int opt;
expecting = IH_TYPE_COUNT; /* Unknown */ while ((opt = getopt(argc, argv,
"a:A:cC:d:D:e:f:Fk:K:ln:O:rR:sT:vVx")) != -1) {
"-a:A:cC:d:D:e:f:Fk:K:ln:O:rR:sT:vVx")) != -1) {
I just encountered an error building the latest ToT on my OS X box with this change. Unfortunately the '-' in optstring seems to be an GNU option and is not portable.
switch (opt) {
@@ -211,14 +217,31 @@ static void process_args(int argc, char **argv) case 'x': params.xflag++; break;
case 1:
if (expecting == type || optind == argc) {
params.imagefile = optarg;
expecting = IH_TYPE_INVALID;
}
break; default: usage("Invalid option"); } }
if (optind >= argc)
/*
* For auto-generated FIT images we need to know the image type to put
* in the FIT, which is separate from the file's image type (which
* will always be IH_TYPE_FLATDT in this case).
*/
if (params.type == IH_TYPE_FLATDT) {
params.fit_image_type = type;
params.datafile = datafile;
} else if (type != IH_TYPE_INVALID) {
params.type = type;
}
if (!params.imagefile) usage("Missing output filename");
params.imagefile = argv[optind];
}
Therefore the imagefile is never set. Do you mind to switch back to the portable version with 'POSIX_CORRECT'?
Hmmm I didn't consider that. I see you have sent a patch (thank you) so let's continue on that thread.
Regards, Simon