On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 at 13:23, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On 6/26/21 8:31 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 at 20:10, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
The current fitImage DTO implementation expects each fitImage image subnode containing DTO to have 'load' property, pointing somewhere into memory where the DTO will be loaded. The address in the 'load' property must be different then the base DT load address and there must be sufficient amount of space between those two addresses. Selecting and using such hard-coded addresses is fragile, error prone and difficult to port even across devices with the same SoC and different DRAM sizes.
The DTO cannot be applied in-place because fdt_overlay_apply_verbose() modifies the DTO when applying it onto the base DT, so if the DTO was used in place within the fitImage, call to fdt_overlay_apply_verbose() would corrupt the fitImage.
Instead of copying the DTO to a specific hard-coded load address, allocate a buffer, copy the DTO into that buffer, apply the DTO onto the base DT, and free the buffer.
The upside of this approach is that it is no longer necessary to select and hard-code specific DTO load address into the DTO. The slight downside is the new malloc()/free() overhead for each DTO, but that is negligible (*).
(*) on iMX8MM/MN and STM32MP1
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut marex@denx.de Cc: Pantelis Antoniou pantelis.antoniou@konsulko.com Cc: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Cc: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com
common/image-fit.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Is this tested by the existing overlay test, or do we need something new?
Overlay test should be sufficient.
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org