On 2.5.2016 06:06, Lokesh Vutla wrote: > Hi Michal, > > On Thursday 28 April 2016 03:01 PM, Michal Simek wrote: >> Support U-Boot SPL to load FIT image from fat partition. >> Fit image can be setup via CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_KERNEL_NAME. >> Falcon mode is not supported. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <[email protected]> >> --- >> >> common/spl/spl_fat.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >> fs/fat/fat.c | 4 ++-- >> 2 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/common/spl/spl_fat.c b/common/spl/spl_fat.c >> index d16cd540e38a..4e319c5fa470 100644 >> --- a/common/spl/spl_fat.c >> +++ b/common/spl/spl_fat.c >> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ >> #include <spl.h> >> #include <asm/u-boot.h> >> #include <fat.h> >> +#include <libfdt.h> >> #include <errno.h> >> #include <image.h> >> >> @@ -39,6 +40,29 @@ static int spl_register_fat_device(struct blk_desc >> *block_dev, int partition) >> return err; >> } >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_SPL_LOAD_FIT >> +static ulong spl_fat_file_read(struct spl_load_info *load, ulong sector, >> + ulong count, void *buf) >> +{ >> + int err; >> + loff_t actread; >> + char *filename = (char *)load->priv; >> + >> + debug("%s: name %s, sector %lx, count %lx, buf %lx\n", >> + __func__, filename, sector, count, (ulong)buf); >> + >> + err = file_fat_read_at(filename, sector, buf, count, &actread); >> + if (err < 0) { >> + printf("%s: error reading image %s, err - %d\n", >> + __func__, filename, err); >> + return err; >> + } >> + >> + debug("actread %lx\n", (ulong)actread); >> + return actread; >> +} >> +#endif >> + >> int spl_load_image_fat(struct blk_desc *block_dev, >> int partition, >> const char *filename) >> @@ -57,16 +81,29 @@ int spl_load_image_fat(struct blk_desc *block_dev, >> if (err <= 0) >> goto end; >> >> - spl_parse_image_header(header); >> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SPL_LOAD_FIT) && >> + image_get_magic(header) == FDT_MAGIC) { >> + struct spl_load_info load; >> + >> + debug("Found FIT\n"); >> + load.priv = (char *)filename; >> + load.bl_len = 1; >> + load.read = spl_fat_file_read; >> + spl_load_simple_fit(&load, 0, header); >> + } else { >> + debug("Legacy image\n"); >> >> - err = file_fat_read(filename, (u8 *)(uintptr_t)spl_image.load_addr, 0); >> + spl_parse_image_header(header); >> >> + err = file_fat_read(filename, >> + (u8 *)(uintptr_t)spl_image.load_addr, 0); >> end: >> #ifdef CONFIG_SPL_LIBCOMMON_SUPPORT >> - if (err <= 0) >> - printf("%s: error reading image %s, err - %d\n", >> - __func__, filename, err); >> + if (err <= 0) >> + printf("%s: error reading image %s, err - %d\n", >> + __func__, filename, err); >> #endif >> + } >> >> return (err <= 0); >> } >> @@ -81,6 +118,7 @@ int spl_load_image_fat_os(struct blk_desc *block_dev, int >> partition) >> if (err) >> return err; >> >> +#if !defined(CONFIG_SPL_LOAD_FIT) >> #if defined(CONFIG_SPL_ENV_SUPPORT) && defined(CONFIG_SPL_OS_BOOT) >> file = getenv("falcon_args_file"); >> if (file) { >> @@ -116,7 +154,7 @@ defaults: >> #endif >> return -1; >> } >> - >> +#endif >> return spl_load_image_fat(block_dev, partition, >> CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_KERNEL_NAME); >> } >> diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c >> index 600a90e30922..0d987e0465ee 100644 >> --- a/fs/fat/fat.c >> +++ b/fs/fat/fat.c >> @@ -281,9 +281,9 @@ get_cluster(fsdata *mydata, __u32 clustnum, __u8 >> *buffer, unsigned long size) >> >> if ((unsigned long)buffer & (ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN - 1)) { >> ALLOC_CACHE_ALIGN_BUFFER(__u8, tmpbuf, mydata->sect_size); >> - >> +#if !defined(CONFIG_SPL_LOAD_FIT) >> printf("FAT: Misaligned buffer address (%p)\n", buffer); >> - >> +#endif > > IMO, this is a hack. Why should fs worry about if it as fit image or > not. Also the read performance will be very slow if you do not pass the > aligned buffer address. I had a different approach[1] for this: first > copy the image to aligned buffer and then do a memcpy to the proper > destination(which showed a better performance). May be this is wrong.
I agree that's why this was RFC not regular patch. I have looked at your solution and also Simon's comments and truth is that your patch has a lot of duplicated stuff. This solution is smaller. Regarding buffer alignment. I think this can be simply added to read function to keep it in the right place. Thanks, Michal _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
