>-----Original Message----- >From: Pali Rohár <[email protected]> >Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 1:22 AM >To: Priyanka Jain <[email protected]> >Cc: Tom Rini <[email protected]>; Alison Wang <[email protected]>; >Mingkai Hu <[email protected]>; Rajesh Bhagat <[email protected]>; >Jiafei Pan <[email protected]>; Simon Glass <[email protected]>; Alexandru >Gagniuc <[email protected]>; Yann Dirson <[email protected]>; >Stefan Roese <[email protected]>; Marek Behún <[email protected]>; u- >[email protected] >Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tools: mkimage: Call verify_header after writing image >to >disk > >On Wednesday 02 February 2022 09:06:30 Priyanka Jain wrote: >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Tom Rini <[email protected]> >> >Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 10:05 PM >> >To: Pali Rohár <[email protected]>; Alison Wang <[email protected]>; >> >Priyanka Jain <[email protected]>; Mingkai Hu >> ><[email protected]>; Rajesh Bhagat <[email protected]> >> >Cc: Simon Glass <[email protected]>; Alexandru Gagniuc >> ><[email protected]>; Yann Dirson <[email protected]>; Stefan >> >Roese <[email protected]>; Marek Behún <[email protected]>; u- >> >[email protected] >> >Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tools: mkimage: Call verify_header after >> >writing image to disk >> > >> >On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 05:31:18PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: >> >> On Friday 21 January 2022 21:15:43 Tom Rini wrote: >> >> > On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 02:44:22AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: >> >> > > On Friday 21 January 2022 16:21:33 Tom Rini wrote: >> >> > > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 06:34:43PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > If image backend provides verify_header callback then call >> >> > > > > it after writing image to disk. This ensures that written image is >correct. >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <[email protected]> >> >> > > > > Reviewed-by: Stefan Roese <[email protected]> >> >> > > > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> >> >> > > > > --- >> >> > > > > tools/mkimage.c | 41 >> >> > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> > > > > 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+) >> >> > > > >> >> > > > This breaks a number of platforms such as >> >> > > > ls1021atwr_sdcard_qspi and it's not clear to me why exactly. >> >> > > >> >> > > Maybe they were already broken and this patch just detected it? >> >> > > Or verify_header callback for particular image type is reject >> >> > > valid image? >> >> > > >> >> > > Do you have some pointers to failed build logs? >> >> > >> >> > Try building for ls1021atwr_sdcard_qspi with your patch applied, >> >> > the only new thing that's shown in the logs is the error message. >> >> >> >> So... I have tried following without this patch: >> >> >> >> $ make ls1021atwr_sdcard_qspi_defconfig $ make >> >> CROSS_COMPILE=arm-linux-gnueabi- -j8 >> >> >> >> It generated file spl/u-boot-spl.pbl without error. Now I called -l >> >> on this generated file for type pblimage and I got following output: >> >> >> >> $ ./tools/dumpimage -T pblimage -l spl/u-boot-spl.pbl GP Header: >> >> Size >> >> aa55aa55 LoadAddr 1ee0100 >> >> >> >> $ ./tools/mkimage -T pblimage -l spl/u-boot-spl.pbl GP Header: Size >> >> aa55aa55 LoadAddr 1ee0100 >> >> >> >> "GP Header:" line is from the TI OMAP image backend type gpimage or >> >> type omapimage (implemented in file gpimage-common.c). >> >> >> >> So it means that files generated by ls1021atwr_sdcard_qspi are >> >> already broken and my patch just detected it. Or it is also >> >> possible that validation code in pblimage.c file is incorrect and broken. >> >> >> >> What to do with it now? >> > >> >Thanks for digging. This is a problem for a number of the ls1021, >> >ls1043 and ls1046 platforms, so lets add some maintainers there. >> > >> >-- >> >Tom >> >> >> I will ask NXP-platform owners to check on this. >> >> Thanks >> Priyanka > >Hello! Any news on this?
Not yet, Actually team was busy in some other critical work. I will try my best to get response as soon as possible. Thanks Priyanka
