Hi Tom,
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 at 07:50, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 06:18:17AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
>
> > This code cannot be compiled by boards which don't have this option. Add
> > an accessor in the header file to avoid another #ifdef
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
> > ---
> >
> > boot/bootm.c | 8 ++++----
> > include/bootm.h | 8 ++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/boot/bootm.c b/boot/bootm.c
> > index 16a43d519a8..0a1040ef923 100644
> > --- a/boot/bootm.c
> > +++ b/boot/bootm.c
> > @@ -633,11 +633,11 @@ static int bootm_load_os(struct bootm_headers
> > *images, int boot_progress)
> > load_buf = map_sysmem(load, 0);
> > image_buf = map_sysmem(os.image_start, image_len);
> > err = image_decomp(os.comp, load, os.image_start, os.type,
> > - load_buf, image_buf, image_len,
> > - CONFIG_SYS_BOOTM_LEN, &load_end);
> > + load_buf, image_buf, image_len, bootm_len(),
> > + &load_end);
> > if (err) {
> > - err = handle_decomp_error(os.comp, load_end - load,
> > - CONFIG_SYS_BOOTM_LEN, err);
> > + err = handle_decomp_error(os.comp, load_end - load,
> > bootm_len(),
> > + err);
> > bootstage_error(BOOTSTAGE_ID_DECOMP_IMAGE);
> > return err;
> > }
> > diff --git a/include/bootm.h b/include/bootm.h
> > index c471615b08c..d174f18ac18 100644
> > --- a/include/bootm.h
> > +++ b/include/bootm.h
> > @@ -89,6 +89,14 @@ struct bootm_info {
> > #define bootm_x86_set(_bmi, _field, _val)
> > #endif
> >
> > +static inline ulong bootm_len(void)
> > +{
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SYS_BOOTM_LEN
> > + return CONFIG_SYS_BOOTM_LEN;
> > +#endif
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > /**
> > * bootm_init() - Set up a bootm_info struct with useful defaults
> > *
>
> This kind of change is wrong in that it moves a build time failure to a
> (potentially non-obvious) runtime failure. If we're moving to now
> dynamically allocating the location where we can decompress to, then it
> should be part of that abstraction. But that doesn't look to be the case
> here.
Yes, sure. The right answer is probably to split out parts of bootm.c
into a new file. I already have 39 patches...it needs a bit more
thought.
Regards,
SImon
