Hi Tom,
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 at 11:30, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 10:25:00AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 at 14:19, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 05, 2023 at 01:03:51PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > This image type is supposed to ignore the load address. But at present > > > > it fails if the load address is missing. If it is zero, the image is > > > > loaded at address 0, which may not work on all boards. > > > > > > > > Make use of the kernel_addr_r environment variable, instead, since this > > > > seems to be a more reliable final address for the kernel. > > > > > > > > Another option would be to create a new Kconfig for this, or to use a > > > > region of memory known to be free, e.g. calculated from the DRAM banks. > > > > But in any case we should try to avoid conflicting with the > > > > kernel_addr_r variable. So the approach in this patch seems reasonable > > > > to me. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > > > How are you creating the image in question here? A noload FIT is > > > supposed to just supposed to go from where it is. Where do things fall > > > down later? > > > > The image is Image.gz built by Linux, for example. So compression = > > "gzip" which means that it has to be decompressed. > > > > Things fall down as soon as U-Boot looks at the image, since it > > doesn't have the ARM64 magic. > > Can you provide logs and env? "booti" is supposed to handle this case > already, and if it's not we should figure out when / why it broke. Do you mean booti handles compression? Yes, I can see that in the code. But in my case I am using bootm, since it is a FIT. Regards, Simon
