On 13/01/17 17:13, Nicolas le bayon wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Here is a problem I presently meet, any help or track to follow would be
> welcome.
> 
> My U-boot (2016.09) loads a kernel and a dtb, and "bootm" all this. This is
> my reference, and this is correctly running.
> 
> From this, I'm trying to implement FIT image management, so I enabled
> CONFIG_FIT.
> 
> On the other side, I constructed the ITS FILE from my kernel and my dtb, as
> described below:
> 
> */dts-v1/;*
> */ {*
> *    description = "Simple image with single Linux kernel and FDT blob";*
> *    #address-cells = <0x1>;*
> *    images {*
> *        kernel@1 {*
> *            description = "My Linux kernel";*
> *            data = /incbin/("./uImage");*

uImage is usually the name of a kernel wrapped into a _legacy U-Boot
image_. Now you are using the new FIT image, so I would use zImage as
the source here instead, otherwise you will have it double wrapped. I
guess U-Boot can't cope with that, also it would be a bit weird.
So copy arch/arm/boot/zImage and use that instead.

Cheers,
Andre.

> *            type = "kernel";*
> *            arch = "arm";*
> *            os = "linux";*
> *            compression = "none";*
> *            load = <0x40008000>;*
> *            entry = <0x40008000>;*
> *            hash@1 {*
> *                algo = "md5";*
> *            };*
> *            hash@2 {*
> *                algo = "sha1";*
> *            };*
> *        };*
> *        fdt@1 {*
> *            description = "My Flattened Device Tree blob";*
> *            data = /incbin/("./mydtb.dtb");*
> *            type = "flat_dt";*
> *            arch = "arm";*
> *            compression = "none";*
> *            hash@1 {*
> *                algo = "md5";*
> *            };*
> *            hash@2 {*
> *                algo = "sha1";*
> *            };*
> *        };*
> *    };*
> */* a notable concept of FIT, configurations */*
> *    configurations {*
> *        default = "conf@1";*
> *        conf@1 {*
> *            description = "Boot Linux kernel with FDT blob";*
> *            kernel = "kernel@1";*
> *            fdt = "fdt@1";*
> *        };*
> *    };*
> *};*
> 
> I managed to construct the ITB (using the mkimage of my u-boot, in tools
> directory) and to store it on my target.
> 
> I load this ITB at 0x60000000 address of memory.
> 
> The "bootm 0x60000000" gives the following error: "Ramdisk image is corrupt
> or invalid". Indeed I have no ramdisk. Not what was described in tutorials.
> 
> The "bootm 0x60000000 - " gives a better result:
> *## Loading kernel from FIT Image at 60000000 ...*
> *   Using 'conf@1' configuration*
> *   Trying 'kernel@1' kernel subimage*
> *     Description:  My Linux kernel*
> *     Type:         Kernel Image*
> *     Compression:  uncompressed*
> *     Data Start:   0x600000e4*
> *     Data Size:    5568600 Bytes = 5.3 MiB (Note: same size as the
> original file!)*
> *     Architecture: ARM*
> *     OS:           Linux*
> *     Load Address: 0x40008000*
> *     Entry Point:  0x40008000*
> *     Hash algo:    md5*
> *     Hash value:   0cccb060e1c4f50e98d8f6c8ed61242e*
> *     Hash algo:    sha1*
> *     Hash value:   f0442dd1b8c4f006b25533c3148df2742fc8a7ad*
> *   Verifying Hash Integrity ... md5+ sha1+ OK*
> *## Loading fdt from FIT Image at 60000000 ...*
> *   Using 'conf@1' configuration*
> *   Trying 'fdt@1' fdt subimage*
> *     Description:  My Flattened Device Tree blob*
> *     Type:         Flat Device Tree*
> *     Compression:  uncompressed*
> *     Data Start:   0x6054fa70*
> *     Data Size:    55154 Bytes = 53.9 KiB **(Note: same size as the
> original file!)*
> *     Architecture: ARM*
> *     Hash algo:    md5*
> *     Hash value:   a201db29486c7c70b707e085d0196fda*
> *     Hash algo:    sha1*
> *     Hash value:   adb751ba04c1aed120a329bb4812a9c8f0bb68a7*
> *   Verifying Hash Integrity ... md5+ sha1+ OK*
> *   Booting using the fdt blob at 0x6054fa70*
> *   Loading Kernel Image ... OK*
> *   Using Device Tree in place at 6054fa70, end 605601e1*
> 
> *Starting kernel ...*
> 
> And unfortunately nothing else after.
> 
> I have the feeling to be in the same conditions, but I do not have the same
> result.
> 
> If you have any idea of what could be wrong, please let me know, it would
> be welcomed.
> Maybe some corrections have been pushed in this domain since v2016.09?
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Best Regards
> Nicolas
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot@lists.denx.de
> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
> 

_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Reply via email to