Jon Loeliger wrote:

On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 20:59, Jerry Van Baren wrote:

...

This makes padding out the blob if the user requested extra size much easer. The assembly and writing to the file is more straight forward too.

Signed-off-by: Gerald Van Baren vanbaren@cideas.com

Hi David, Jon,

I wasn't happy with David's suggestion on the -S handling. I also wasn't all that wild about how the blob was assembled and then written to the file piecemeal with "ad-hoc" alignment padding. I realized I could fix both by assembling the blob in memory as a "struct data" and then write the whole thing out in one fell swoop.

Makes it a lot simpler and cleaner to my eyes.

Hope y'all agree, gvb

Jerry and David,

Sorry. I've been out sick for a couple days here and am just now catching up. I've read through the last week's worth of mail here now, so let me see if I have properly summarized where things stand and what's needed for the DTC:

These patches need to be applied:

[PATCH dtc] Add -o <output file> to the usage message.
Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:16:47 -0400

[PATCH dtc take 3] Fix reserve map output for asm format.
Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:14:41 -0400

[PATCH: dtc take 2] Assemble the blob in memory before writing it out.
Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:59:51 -0400

The last patch there replaces the "Improve -S handling" patches. But does the last patch replace or depend on the second one?

And I agree with David that last patch is a better approach.

Thanks, jdl

Yes, you have that right.

Patch #1 is good to go [PATCH dtc] Add -o <output file> to the usage message. Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:16:47 -0400

Patch #2 and #3... [PATCH dtc take 3] Fix reserve map output for asm format. Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:14:41 -0400 [PATCH: dtc take 2] Assemble the blob in memory before writing it out. Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:59:51 -0400

...you force me to make a confession. The third patch depends on the second patch because I snuck in a fix to the ASM output into the third patch: the last two chunks fix the ASM header output - I padded the blob out but didn't change the size properly in the header. In the third patch above, I added a label "%s_blob_abs_end" and used that to calculate the total blob size (including the padding) in the header:

- fprintf(f, "\t.long\t_%s_blob_end - _%s_blob_start /* totalsize */\n", + fprintf(f, "\t.long\t_%s_blob_abs_end - _%s_blob_start /* totalsize */\n",

--------

AAAARGH! Sorry, I see I left a debug statement in flattree.c around line 390:

@@ -383,28 +370,46 @@ void dt_to_blob(FILE *f, struct boot_info *bi, int version, : : +fprintf(stderr, "minsize = %d, totalsize = %d, padlen = %d\n", minsize, be32_to_cpu(bph.totalsize), padlen);

Your option: 1) Take the last two patches as is and remove the fprintf yourself 2) I'll fix it tonight and provide a New Improved patch

Thanks, gvb