On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 02:36:06PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 08:51:43PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > A previous commit introduced the use of binman in the SPL.
> >
> > After the binman_sym call over the 'pos' symbol, the output value is
> > checked against BINMAN_SYM_MISSING (-1UL). According to the
> > documentation (tools/binman/README), when it comes to the 'pos'
> > attribute:
> >
> > pos:
> > This sets the position of an entry within the image. The first
> > byte of the image is normally at position 0. If 'pos' is not
> > provided, binman sets it to the end of the previous region, or
> > the start of the image's entry area (normally 0) if there is no
> > previous region.
> >
> > So instead of checking if the return value is BINMAN_SYM_MISSING, we
> > should also check if the value is not null.
> >
> > The failure happens when using both the SPL file and the U-Boot file
> > independently instead of the concatenated file (SPL + padding + U-Boot).
> > This is because the U-Boot binary file alone does not have the U-Boot
> > header while it is present in the concatenation file. Not having the
> > header forces the SPL to discover where it should load U-Boot. The
> > binman_sym call is supposed to do that but fails. Because of the wrong
> > check, the destination address was set to 0 while it should have been
> > somewhere in RAM. This, obviously, stalls the board.
> >
> > Fixes: 8bee2d251afb ("binman: Add binman symbol support to SPL")
> > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <[email protected]>
>
> I'm not sure why it wasn't sent to you, but could you please have a
> look at that patch?
Ping?
--
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
