[U-Boot] [PATCH] spl: fix entry_point equal to load_addr
At the moment entry_point is set to image_get_load(header) that sets it to "load address" instead of "entry point", assuming entry_point is equal to load_addr, but it's not true. Then load_addr is set to "entry_point - header_size", but this is wrong too since load_addr is not an entry point.
So use image_get_ep() for entry_point assignment and image_get_load() for load_addr assignment.
Signed-off-by: Giulio Benetti giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com --- common/spl/spl.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/common/spl/spl.c b/common/spl/spl.c index f1ad8dc9da..cdae346753 100644 --- a/common/spl/spl.c +++ b/common/spl/spl.c @@ -261,9 +261,9 @@ int spl_parse_image_header(struct spl_image_info *spl_image, spl_image->entry_point = image_get_ep(header); spl_image->size = image_get_data_size(header); } else { - spl_image->entry_point = image_get_load(header); + spl_image->entry_point = image_get_ep(header); /* Load including the header */ - spl_image->load_addr = spl_image->entry_point - + spl_image->load_addr = image_get_load(header) - header_size; spl_image->size = image_get_data_size(header) + header_size;
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:18:20PM +0100, Giulio Benetti wrote:
At the moment entry_point is set to image_get_load(header) that sets it to "load address" instead of "entry point", assuming entry_point is equal to load_addr, but it's not true. Then load_addr is set to "entry_point - header_size", but this is wrong too since load_addr is not an entry point.
So use image_get_ep() for entry_point assignment and image_get_load() for load_addr assignment.
Signed-off-by: Giulio Benetti giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com
Applied to u-boot/master, thanks!
Hi
This patch is breaking the STM32MP15 basic boot (spl => u-boot).
I will send a fix proposal.
Thanks
Patrice
On 12/5/19 11:09 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:18:20PM +0100, Giulio Benetti wrote:
At the moment entry_point is set to image_get_load(header) that sets it to "load address" instead of "entry point", assuming entry_point is equal to load_addr, but it's not true. Then load_addr is set to "entry_point - header_size", but this is wrong too since load_addr is not an entry point.
So use image_get_ep() for entry_point assignment and image_get_load() for load_addr assignment.
Signed-off-by: Giulio Benetti giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com
Applied to u-boot/master, thanks!
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 1:46 PM Patrice CHOTARD patrice.chotard@st.com wrote:
Hi
This patch is breaking the STM32MP15 basic boot (spl => u-boot).
Looking at socfpga gen5 u-boot.img, this is probably broken as well.
And I don't even see any RB or TB tags here :-(
Regards, Simon
I will send a fix proposal.
Thanks
Patrice
On 12/5/19 11:09 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:18:20PM +0100, Giulio Benetti wrote:
At the moment entry_point is set to image_get_load(header) that sets it to "load address" instead of "entry point", assuming entry_point is equal to load_addr, but it's not true. Then load_addr is set to "entry_point - header_size", but this is wrong too since load_addr is not an entry point.
So use image_get_ep() for entry_point assignment and image_get_load() for load_addr assignment.
Signed-off-by: Giulio Benetti giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com
Applied to u-boot/master, thanks!
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 01:58:46PM +0100, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 1:46 PM Patrice CHOTARD patrice.chotard@st.com wrote:
Hi
This patch is breaking the STM32MP15 basic boot (spl => u-boot).
Looking at socfpga gen5 u-boot.img, this is probably broken as well.
And I don't even see any RB or TB tags here :-(
Ugh, what the heck? I applied this because I looked over the changes and they seemed correct. I'm quite willing to just revert this but I would like to know how it's breaking. Sorry all!
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 2:34 PM Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 01:58:46PM +0100, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 1:46 PM Patrice CHOTARD patrice.chotard@st.com wrote:
Hi
This patch is breaking the STM32MP15 basic boot (spl => u-boot).
Looking at socfpga gen5 u-boot.img, this is probably broken as well.
And I don't even see any RB or TB tags here :-(
Ugh, what the heck? I applied this because I looked over the changes and they seemed correct. I'm quite willing to just revert this but I would like to know how it's breaking. Sorry all!
Looking at the branch a few lines up I can understand why this seemed like a small change. I hadn't seen this before Patrice's mail, either.
Let me test this on socfpga_socrates tomorrow, I could still be wrong since this is from reading the code and binary only. But entry_point should be 0 in my u-boot.img if I'm not mistaken, and that should break it.
Regards, Simon
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 02:37:52PM +0100, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 2:34 PM Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 01:58:46PM +0100, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 1:46 PM Patrice CHOTARD patrice.chotard@st.com wrote:
Hi
This patch is breaking the STM32MP15 basic boot (spl => u-boot).
Looking at socfpga gen5 u-boot.img, this is probably broken as well.
And I don't even see any RB or TB tags here :-(
Ugh, what the heck? I applied this because I looked over the changes and they seemed correct. I'm quite willing to just revert this but I would like to know how it's breaking. Sorry all!
Looking at the branch a few lines up I can understand why this seemed like a small change. I hadn't seen this before Patrice's mail, either.
Let me test this on socfpga_socrates tomorrow, I could still be wrong since this is from reading the code and binary only. But entry_point should be 0 in my u-boot.img if I'm not mistaken, and that should break it.
Maybe I just haven't had enough coffee or time to think, but that sounds like entry_point being set wrong somewhere. Of course, if it's being set wrong somewhere and it's not self-contained within U-Boot to correct it (iow external scripts/docs), we have to deal with that reality.
Hello Tom, all,
On 12/6/19 2:34 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 01:58:46PM +0100, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 1:46 PM Patrice CHOTARD patrice.chotard@st.com wrote:
Hi
This patch is breaking the STM32MP15 basic boot (spl => u-boot).
Looking at socfpga gen5 u-boot.img, this is probably broken as well.
And I don't even see any RB or TB tags here :-(
Ugh, what the heck? I applied this because I looked over the changes and they seemed correct. I'm quite willing to just revert this but I would like to know how it's breaking. Sorry all!
IMHO this is due to wrong images creation with mkinage, especially when passing parameters with -a and -e flags.
In my case I need them to be: -a 0x80002000 (load address) => CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE -e 0x800023FD (entry point where SPL jumps to) => CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START
So *maybe* on STM32MP1 and other broken boards -e (CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START) is not equal to -a (CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE) as was assumed before(but wrong).
Indeed CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START is set to 0 if not specified in u-boot/Makefile: ` # U-Boot entry point, needed for booting of full-blown U-Boot # from the SPL U-Boot version. # ifndef CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START := 0 endif `
So probably broken boards try to jump to absolute 0. A solving patch would be: ifndef CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START := CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE endif
What do you think?
Sorry for this mess!
Best regards
Hi All
On 12/6/19 2:48 PM, Giulio Benetti wrote:
Hello Tom, all,
On 12/6/19 2:34 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 01:58:46PM +0100, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 1:46 PM Patrice CHOTARD patrice.chotard@st.com wrote:
Hi
This patch is breaking the STM32MP15 basic boot (spl => u-boot).
Looking at socfpga gen5 u-boot.img, this is probably broken as well.
And I don't even see any RB or TB tags here :-(
Ugh, what the heck? I applied this because I looked over the changes and they seemed correct. I'm quite willing to just revert this but I would like to know how it's breaking. Sorry all!
IMHO this is due to wrong images creation with mkinage, especially when passing parameters with -a and -e flags.
In my case I need them to be: -a 0x80002000 (load address) => CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE -e 0x800023FD (entry point where SPL jumps to) => CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START
So *maybe* on STM32MP1 and other broken boards -e (CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START) is not equal to -a (CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE) as was assumed before(but wrong).
Indeed CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START is set to 0 if not specified in u-boot/Makefile: ` # U-Boot entry point, needed for booting of full-blown U-Boot # from the SPL U-Boot version. # ifndef CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START := 0 endif `
So probably broken boards try to jump to absolute 0. A solving patch would be: ifndef CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START := CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE endif
What do you think?
This is what i implemented to fix this issue. Here is my proposal [1], but i need some
feedback from some boards maintainers.
[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=146876
Thanks
Patrice
Sorry for this mess!
Best regards
Hi Patrice,
On 12/6/19 3:04 PM, Patrice CHOTARD wrote:
So probably broken boards try to jump to absolute 0. A solving patch would be: ifndef CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START := CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE endif
What do you think?
This is what i implemented to fix this issue. Here is my proposal [1], but i need some
Yes, I've missed it for few minutes. Thanks for solving this.
Best regards
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 2:49 PM Giulio Benetti giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com wrote:
Hello Tom, all,
On 12/6/19 2:34 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 01:58:46PM +0100, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 1:46 PM Patrice CHOTARD patrice.chotard@st.com wrote:
Hi
This patch is breaking the STM32MP15 basic boot (spl => u-boot).
Looking at socfpga gen5 u-boot.img, this is probably broken as well.
And I don't even see any RB or TB tags here :-(
Ugh, what the heck? I applied this because I looked over the changes and they seemed correct. I'm quite willing to just revert this but I would like to know how it's breaking. Sorry all!
IMHO this is due to wrong images creation with mkinage, especially when passing parameters with -a and -e flags.
In my case I need them to be: -a 0x80002000 (load address) => CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE -e 0x800023FD (entry point where SPL jumps to) => CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START
Well, CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START is only set in 15 files in include/configs, so I guess a lot more boards might be broken...
So *maybe* on STM32MP1 and other broken boards -e (CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START) is not equal to -a (CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE) as was assumed before(but wrong).
Indeed CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START is set to 0 if not specified in u-boot/Makefile: ` # U-Boot entry point, needed for booting of full-blown U-Boot # from the SPL U-Boot version. # ifndef CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START := 0 endif `
So probably broken boards try to jump to absolute 0. A solving patch would be: ifndef CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START := CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE endif
That might work, but I wonder if this is the correct time in the release to do so.
Regards, Simon
What do you think?
Sorry for this mess!
Best regards
Giulio Benetti Benetti Engineering sas
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 03:05:55PM +0100, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 2:49 PM Giulio Benetti giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com wrote:
Hello Tom, all,
On 12/6/19 2:34 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 01:58:46PM +0100, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 1:46 PM Patrice CHOTARD patrice.chotard@st.com wrote:
Hi
This patch is breaking the STM32MP15 basic boot (spl => u-boot).
Looking at socfpga gen5 u-boot.img, this is probably broken as well.
And I don't even see any RB or TB tags here :-(
Ugh, what the heck? I applied this because I looked over the changes and they seemed correct. I'm quite willing to just revert this but I would like to know how it's breaking. Sorry all!
IMHO this is due to wrong images creation with mkinage, especially when passing parameters with -a and -e flags.
In my case I need them to be: -a 0x80002000 (load address) => CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE -e 0x800023FD (entry point where SPL jumps to) => CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START
Well, CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START is only set in 15 files in include/configs, so I guess a lot more boards might be broken...
So *maybe* on STM32MP1 and other broken boards -e (CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START) is not equal to -a (CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE) as was assumed before(but wrong).
Indeed CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START is set to 0 if not specified in u-boot/Makefile: ` # U-Boot entry point, needed for booting of full-blown U-Boot # from the SPL U-Boot version. # ifndef CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START := 0 endif `
So probably broken boards try to jump to absolute 0. A solving patch would be: ifndef CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START := CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE endif
That might work, but I wonder if this is the correct time in the release to do so.
Yes, at this point in the cycle the best option is to revert the original commit and for the next release bring it back after applying Patrice's series to fix the bogus default to CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START and cleaning up defconfigs. Sorry again for all the troubles!
Hi Tom,
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 3:55 PM Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 03:05:55PM +0100, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 2:49 PM Giulio Benetti giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com wrote:
Hello Tom, all,
On 12/6/19 2:34 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 01:58:46PM +0100, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 1:46 PM Patrice CHOTARD patrice.chotard@st.com wrote:
Hi
This patch is breaking the STM32MP15 basic boot (spl => u-boot).
Looking at socfpga gen5 u-boot.img, this is probably broken as well.
And I don't even see any RB or TB tags here :-(
Ugh, what the heck? I applied this because I looked over the changes and they seemed correct. I'm quite willing to just revert this but I would like to know how it's breaking. Sorry all!
IMHO this is due to wrong images creation with mkinage, especially when passing parameters with -a and -e flags.
In my case I need them to be: -a 0x80002000 (load address) => CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE -e 0x800023FD (entry point where SPL jumps to) => CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START
Well, CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START is only set in 15 files in include/configs, so I guess a lot more boards might be broken...
So *maybe* on STM32MP1 and other broken boards -e (CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START) is not equal to -a (CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE) as was assumed before(but wrong).
Indeed CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START is set to 0 if not specified in u-boot/Makefile: ` # U-Boot entry point, needed for booting of full-blown U-Boot # from the SPL U-Boot version. # ifndef CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START := 0 endif `
So probably broken boards try to jump to absolute 0. A solving patch would be: ifndef CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START := CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE endif
That might work, but I wonder if this is the correct time in the release to do so.
Yes, at this point in the cycle the best option is to revert the original commit and for the next release bring it back after applying Patrice's series to fix the bogus default to CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START and cleaning up defconfigs. Sorry again for all the troubles!
I just wanted to confirm socfpga_gen5 doesn't boot with this patch but it's ok again now you reverted it.
Regards, Simon
Hi All,
On 12/7/19 10:28 PM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 3:55 PM Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 03:05:55PM +0100, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 2:49 PM Giulio Benetti giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com wrote:
Hello Tom, all,
On 12/6/19 2:34 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 01:58:46PM +0100, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 1:46 PM Patrice CHOTARD patrice.chotard@st.com wrote: > > Hi > > This patch is breaking the STM32MP15 basic boot (spl => u-boot).
Looking at socfpga gen5 u-boot.img, this is probably broken as well.
And I don't even see any RB or TB tags here :-(
Ugh, what the heck? I applied this because I looked over the changes and they seemed correct. I'm quite willing to just revert this but I would like to know how it's breaking. Sorry all!
IMHO this is due to wrong images creation with mkinage, especially when passing parameters with -a and -e flags.
In my case I need them to be: -a 0x80002000 (load address) => CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE -e 0x800023FD (entry point where SPL jumps to) => CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START
Well, CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START is only set in 15 files in include/configs, so I guess a lot more boards might be broken...
So *maybe* on STM32MP1 and other broken boards -e (CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START) is not equal to -a (CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE) as was assumed before(but wrong).
Indeed CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START is set to 0 if not specified in u-boot/Makefile: ` # U-Boot entry point, needed for booting of full-blown U-Boot # from the SPL U-Boot version. # ifndef CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START := 0 endif `
So probably broken boards try to jump to absolute 0. A solving patch would be: ifndef CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START := CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE endif
That might work, but I wonder if this is the correct time in the release to do so.
Yes, at this point in the cycle the best option is to revert the original commit and for the next release bring it back after applying Patrice's series to fix the bogus default to CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START and cleaning up defconfigs. Sorry again for all the troubles!
I just wanted to confirm socfpga_gen5 doesn't boot with this patch but it's ok again now you reverted it.
Now that patches: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1205064/ https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1205063/
and 2020.01 has been released, can you please commit this patch?
I've re-submitted also on patchset to Add i.MXRT family since it's needed to boot Linux: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=152468
Kind regards
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 03:57:47PM +0100, Giulio Benetti wrote:
Hi All,
On 12/7/19 10:28 PM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 3:55 PM Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 03:05:55PM +0100, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 2:49 PM Giulio Benetti giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com wrote:
Hello Tom, all,
On 12/6/19 2:34 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 01:58:46PM +0100, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 1:46 PM Patrice CHOTARD patrice.chotard@st.com wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > This patch is breaking the STM32MP15 basic boot (spl => u-boot). > > Looking at socfpga gen5 u-boot.img, this is probably broken as well. > > And I don't even see any RB or TB tags here :-(
Ugh, what the heck? I applied this because I looked over the changes and they seemed correct. I'm quite willing to just revert this but I would like to know how it's breaking. Sorry all!
IMHO this is due to wrong images creation with mkinage, especially when passing parameters with -a and -e flags.
In my case I need them to be: -a 0x80002000 (load address) => CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE -e 0x800023FD (entry point where SPL jumps to) => CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START
Well, CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START is only set in 15 files in include/configs, so I guess a lot more boards might be broken...
So *maybe* on STM32MP1 and other broken boards -e (CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START) is not equal to -a (CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE) as was assumed before(but wrong).
Indeed CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START is set to 0 if not specified in u-boot/Makefile: ` # U-Boot entry point, needed for booting of full-blown U-Boot # from the SPL U-Boot version. # ifndef CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START := 0 endif `
So probably broken boards try to jump to absolute 0. A solving patch would be: ifndef CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START := CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE endif
That might work, but I wonder if this is the correct time in the release to do so.
Yes, at this point in the cycle the best option is to revert the original commit and for the next release bring it back after applying Patrice's series to fix the bogus default to CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START and cleaning up defconfigs. Sorry again for all the troubles!
I just wanted to confirm socfpga_gen5 doesn't boot with this patch but it's ok again now you reverted it.
Now that patches: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1205064/ https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1205063/
and 2020.01 has been released, can you please commit this patch?
I've re-submitted also on patchset to Add i.MXRT family since it's needed to boot Linux: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=152468
Yes, this is on my list of things to get back to as I clear out parts of my queue, thanks for the reminder.
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:18:20PM +0100, Giulio Benetti wrote:
At the moment entry_point is set to image_get_load(header) that sets it to "load address" instead of "entry point", assuming entry_point is equal to load_addr, but it's not true. Then load_addr is set to "entry_point - header_size", but this is wrong too since load_addr is not an entry point.
So use image_get_ep() for entry_point assignment and image_get_load() for load_addr assignment.
Signed-off-by: Giulio Benetti giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com
Applied to u-boot/master, thanks!
Hi Tom,
+Stefano B.
On 1/16/20 3:40 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:18:20PM +0100, Giulio Benetti wrote:
At the moment entry_point is set to image_get_load(header) that sets it to "load address" instead of "entry point", assuming entry_point is equal to load_addr, but it's not true. Then load_addr is set to "entry_point - header_size", but this is wrong too since load_addr is not an entry point.
So use image_get_ep() for entry_point assignment and image_get_load() for load_addr assignment.
Signed-off-by: Giulio Benetti giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com
Applied to u-boot/master, thanks!
It's been already committed by Stefano Babic in imx and you've pulled from him.
Sorry that I've submitted it twice!
Best regards
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 03:46:15PM +0100, Giulio Benetti wrote:
Hi Tom,
+Stefano B.
On 1/16/20 3:40 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:18:20PM +0100, Giulio Benetti wrote:
At the moment entry_point is set to image_get_load(header) that sets it to "load address" instead of "entry point", assuming entry_point is equal to load_addr, but it's not true. Then load_addr is set to "entry_point - header_size", but this is wrong too since load_addr is not an entry point.
So use image_get_ep() for entry_point assignment and image_get_load() for load_addr assignment.
Signed-off-by: Giulio Benetti giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com
Applied to u-boot/master, thanks!
It's been already committed by Stefano Babic in imx and you've pulled from him.
Sorry that I've submitted it twice!
Ah, I missed git saying there was nothing to do while applying that part of the mbox. No worries.
participants (4)
-
Giulio Benetti -
Patrice CHOTARD -
Simon Goldschmidt -
Tom Rini