On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 03:14:30PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 09/17/2016 05:42 AM, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:21:43PM +0100, Paul Burton wrote:
> >> Commit bac17b78dace ("image-fit: switch ENOLINK to ENOENT") changed
> >> fit_get_node_from_config to return -ENOENT when a property doesn't
> >> exist, but didn't change any of its callers which check return values.
> >> Notably it didn't change boot_get_ramdisk, which leads to U-Boot failing
> >> to boot FIT images which don't include ramdisks with the following
> >> message:
> >>
> >>   Ramdisk image is corrupt or invalid
> >>
> >> The offending commit seems to dislike ENOLINK due to it not existing on
> >> OpenBSD, but I'm not sure why that matters as we define it in
> >> include/asm-generic/errno.h anyway so simply revert the commit to fix
> >> FIT image handling.
> > 
> > That header is not used when building native tools.
> > So reverting it will break the build of u-boot on OpenBSD.
> > 
> >   WRAP    tools/common/image-fit.c
> >   HOSTCC  tools/common/image-fit.o
> > In file included from tools/common/image-fit.c:1:
> > /usr/users/jsg/src/u-boot/tools/../common/image-fit.c: In function 
> > 'fit_get_node_from_config':
> > /usr/users/jsg/src/u-boot/tools/../common/image-fit.c:1569: error: 
> > 'ENOLINK' undeclared (first use in this function)
> > /usr/users/jsg/src/u-boot/tools/../common/image-fit.c:1569: error: (Each 
> > undeclared identifier is reported only once
> > /usr/users/jsg/src/u-boot/tools/../common/image-fit.c:1569: error: for each 
> > function it appears in.)
> > 
> I seriously do not care if it's broken on OpenBSD if there is about one
> user of such system. The problem is the original patch broke booting of
> fitImage-wrapped kernels and this is serious breakage which makes
> 2016.09 release effectively useless.
> I do support this revert and we will likely need v2016.09.1 unfortunately.

Lets take a step back.  It's my fault that things broke in the release
as I assumed that the tests I was automatically running to exercise FIT
stuff included a successful boot check.  They didn't, so this slipped
in.  I've posted an update to make sure that the FIT tests will cover
this kind of thing in the future.

And non-Linux support, both host and target, is something I see as a
valuable and important use case for U-Boot.  This includes more and less
public and visible and open and commercial things.

> -- 
> Best regards,
> Marek Vasut


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

U-Boot mailing list

Reply via email to