Hi Simon,
On 29.11.23 20:00, Simon Glass wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:35, Ahmad Fatoum a.fatoum@pengutronix.de wrote:
Doesn't hardcoding a load address and entry address here defeat the point of having FIT as generic portable image format?
At least barebox will try to place the kernel image at physical address 0 and will exit with an error message if no SDRAM is located at that address. The recommendation in that case is to omit load and entry address altogether to have barebox find a suitable location, but I see now that the FIT specification requires a load and entry address. What would happen if U-Boot tries to load this FIT image on a board that has no DRAM at address 0?
The 'kernel_noload' type indicates that the load/exec address are ignored.
Can the script not insert load/exec addresses with dummy values to avoid confusion?
Please Cc me on subsequent revisions. I am interested in testing that this works for barebox too.
There has been some discussion about this recently in U-Boot too, along with a series [1] which you could try if you like.
Thanks for the pointer. I have just sent out a first patch to add support for kernel_noload to the barebox mailing list[1]. With that change applied, barebox can boot the FIT images generated by this series.
Once that's accepted, I'll reply with a Tested-by.
[1]: https://lore.barebox.org/barebox/20231129203106.2417486-1-a.fatoum@pengutron...
The FIT spec[2] does not provide enough detail on exactly what kernel_noload means and we should improve this at some point.
Yes, that would be nice. Also straight references to e.g. U-Boot configuration symbols could use some rewording.
Thanks, Ahmad
Regards, Simon
[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=382849 [2] https://github.com/open-source-firmware/flat-image-tree
Thanks, Ahmad
-- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |