The examples in the U-boot docs use "hash-N" and "signature-N" as the names for hash/signature nodes. It seems "@N" was used instead at some point during the development of the FIT format and "-N" is more correct (in fact, dtc throws warnings when using "@N" without a reg attribute). Support for the "@N" node names is preserved for backward compatibility.
Signed-off-by: Matthias Schiffer <[email protected]> --- v2: add signature-1 in addition to hash-1 common/image-fit.c | 8 ++++++-- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/common/image-fit.c b/common/image-fit.c index dfd1fa02c..87a55b7e2 100644 --- a/common/image-fit.c +++ b/common/image-fit.c @@ -392,7 +392,9 @@ static int fit_verify_hash(struct fit_handle *handle, struct device_node *image, ret = -EINVAL; } - hash = of_get_child_by_name(image, "hash@1"); + hash = of_get_child_by_name(image, "hash-1"); + if (!hash) + hash = of_get_child_by_name(image, "hash@1"); if (!hash) { if (ret) pr_err("image %s does not have hashes\n", @@ -468,7 +470,9 @@ static int fit_image_verify_signature(struct fit_handle *handle, ret = -EINVAL; } - sig_node = of_get_child_by_name(image, "signature@1"); + sig_node = of_get_child_by_name(image, "signature-1"); + if (!sig_node) + sig_node = of_get_child_by_name(image, "signature@1"); if (!sig_node) { pr_err("Image %s has no signature\n", image->full_name); return ret; -- 2.17.1 _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
