Hi Jan,
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 04:48, Jan Kiszka jan.kiszka@siemens.com wrote:
On 23.02.22 23:59, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Alper,
On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 11:58, Alper Nebi Yasak alpernebiyasak@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/02/2022 07:40, Simon Glass wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 at 08:53, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 at 10:34, Alper Nebi Yasak alpernebiyasak@gmail.com wrote:
I can reproduce this and tried a few things, but more issues just kept popping up (outside u-boot as well). I got it to a point where the command re-packs the FIT and the image but quite wrongly. The offset and image-pos properties get added in the FIT, and the image main-section just concatenates all entries without regard to set offsets. I'll need more time to work those out, then to add tests and send patches.
I am going to try to merge my fit generator series today.
One issue I notice is that the conversion to use entry_Section changes the contents of the self._fit_entries dict. Before it was keyed by relative path, but entry_section keys self._entries by node name.
Yeah, this causes an error in image.FindEntryPath() while trying to replace e.g. "/fit@0x280000/images/u-boot" since there is no "images" entry in the FIT. Changing the key to the node name works, but then the "binman replace" invocation needs to use e.g. "/fit@0x280000/u-boot".
We may need to split it up. I will see if I can at least merge my series, which should not make things any worse, then see if I can come up with ideas.
Thanks for the diff.
I did a bit more fiddling and pushed a tree to u-boot-dm/fit-working
It refactors the fit implementation to separate scanning from emitting the tree and I think this might help quite a bit. I'll send out the series when I get a chance in the next few days or so.
I've also managed to somewhat fix the rest of the issues I wrote, so now I can replace a FIT entry with a modified one (having a different u-boot file), or replace a subentry of the FIT with an arbitrary file.
I couldn't look at your new version much but I'll try to see how good my fixes apply on top of it, will probably take me longer to patchify things.
OK I'm going to send a new series with (most of) your suggested fixes a new patches, then my refactoring. Just need to get things through CI.
What's the status here? I've just rebased over master, a simple revert of this commit no longer works, and the regression is still present. Are there any pending patches that fixes this and I should pick locally in order to rebase/test my pending things?
Please see this series and review if you can:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/user/todo/uboot/?series=287681
I did not add a test for your issue though. Can you take a look?
Regards, Simon