Hi Jan, On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 04:48, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> wrote: > > On 23.02.22 23:59, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Alper, > > > > On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 11:58, Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiya...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> On 21/02/2022 07:40, Simon Glass wrote: > >>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 at 08:53, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 at 10:34, Alper Nebi Yasak > >>>> <alpernebiya...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> I can reproduce this and tried a few things, but more issues just kept > >>>>> popping up (outside u-boot as well). I got it to a point where the > >>>>> command re-packs the FIT and the image but quite wrongly. The offset and > >>>>> image-pos properties get added in the FIT, and the image main-section > >>>>> just concatenates all entries without regard to set offsets. I'll > >>>>> need more time to work those out, then to add tests and send patches. > >>>> > >>>> I am going to try to merge my fit generator series today. > >>>> > >>>> One issue I notice is that the conversion to use entry_Section changes > >>>> the contents of the self._fit_entries dict. Before it was keyed by > >>>> relative path, but entry_section keys self._entries by node name. > >> > >> Yeah, this causes an error in image.FindEntryPath() while trying to > >> replace e.g. "/fit@0x280000/images/u-boot" since there is no "images" > >> entry in the FIT. Changing the key to the node name works, but then the > >> "binman replace" invocation needs to use e.g. "/fit@0x280000/u-boot". > >> > >>>> > >>>> We may need to split it up. I will see if I can at least merge my > >>>> series, which should not make things any worse, then see if I can come > >>>> up with ideas. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for the diff. > >>> > >>> I did a bit more fiddling and pushed a tree to u-boot-dm/fit-working > >>> > >>> It refactors the fit implementation to separate scanning from emitting > >>> the tree and I think this might help quite a bit. I'll send out the > >>> series when I get a chance in the next few days or so. > >> > >> I've also managed to somewhat fix the rest of the issues I wrote, so now > >> I can replace a FIT entry with a modified one (having a different u-boot > >> file), or replace a subentry of the FIT with an arbitrary file. > >> > >> I couldn't look at your new version much but I'll try to see how good my > >> fixes apply on top of it, will probably take me longer to patchify things. > > > > OK I'm going to send a new series with (most of) your suggested fixes > > a new patches, then my refactoring. Just need to get things through > > CI. > > > > What's the status here? I've just rebased over master, a simple revert > of this commit no longer works, and the regression is still present. Are > there any pending patches that fixes this and I should pick locally in > order to rebase/test my pending things?
Please see this series and review if you can: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/user/todo/uboot/?series=287681 I did not add a test for your issue though. Can you take a look? Regards, Simon
