> On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 at 02:00, Roman Azarenko <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2023-08-25 at 12:06 -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > @@ -564,9 +564,13 @@ static int fit_extract_data(struct > > > > image_tool_params *params, const char *fname) > > > > /* Pack the FDT and place the data after it */ > > > > fdt_pack(fdt); > > > > > > > > - new_size = fdt_totalsize(fdt); > > > > - new_size = ALIGN(new_size, align_size); > > > > + unpadded_size = fdt_totalsize(fdt); > > > > + new_size = ALIGN(unpadded_size, align_size); > > > > fdt_set_totalsize(fdt, new_size); > > > > > > I didn't know that was allowed...I thought it needed fdt_open_into() ? > > > > The introduction of fdt_set_totalsize() comes from commit ebfe611be91e > > ("mkimage: fit_image: Add option to make fit header align"). The commit > > message doesn't describe the choice of this function vs fdt_open_into(). > > > > Personally I'm unable to definitively comment on it. I can only blindly > > guess, that because we're only changing the total length of the fdt > > struct, and keeping all other fields the same, we don't need to allocate > > a new fdt struct with a different size. > > I am not sure if it would cause problems. I do understand that you > didn't write the code. You could copy the people who did (and those > that reviewed it) for their input. >
@Kever, @Punit, @Tom, could you please comment on this remark by Simon? Thank you! > Could you add another patch before or after this one? I'll look into this as well, and see if I can figure it out and then post v3 of the patchset. Thanks!
