On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 08:19:05AM -0600, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 12:19:34PM +0530, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote:
>
> > From: Vandhiadevan Karunamoorthy <quic_vkaru...@quicinc.com>
> >
> > There are code paths in do_imgextract(), where 'dest' could be zero.
> > Hence, avoid cache flush of 'dest' doesn't point to any data buffer.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vandhiadevan Karunamoorthy <quic_vkaru...@quicinc.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Varadarajan Narayanan <quic_var...@quicinc.com>
> > ---
> > cmd/ximg.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/cmd/ximg.c b/cmd/ximg.c
> > index 29d7c3279b3..8907b579d4c 100644
> > --- a/cmd/ximg.c
> > +++ b/cmd/ximg.c
> > @@ -265,7 +265,8 @@ do_imgextract(struct cmd_tbl *cmdtp, int flag, int
> > argc, char *const argv[])
> > puts("OK\n");
> > }
> >
> > - flush_cache(dest, ALIGN(len, ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN));
> > + if (dest)
> > + flush_cache(dest, ALIGN(len, ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN));
> >
> > env_set_hex("fileaddr", data);
> > env_set_hex("filesize", len);
> >
> > base-commit: 1b5e435102aa29a665119430196cb366ce36a01b
>
> A memory base of 0x0 is valid and not that uncommon, is there more going
> on here that lead to this patch?
Facing an abort if it 0x0 (arm64 based SoC).
Thanks
Varada
