On 13 March 2018 at 21:36, Maxime Ripard <[email protected]> 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? > > Thanks! > Maxime > >> --- >> common/spl/spl.c | 10 ++++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
