Hi Dorde,
On 2/3/26 4:41 PM, Dorde Stojicevic wrote:
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why
this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
From ae3f90922f5c31bd6198deb149edb9476ecfe4ef Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dorde Stojicevic
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2026 14:48:36 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] arm: Backward compatibility to U-Boot v2020.04 Series-to:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Series-version: 1
Signed-off-by: Dorde Stojicevic
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Cover-letter:
Backward compatibility with U-Boot v2020.04
Needed in order to boot LynxSecure Hypervisor, otherwise
U-Boot will fail at this position and reset the controller
END
Commit-notes:
Backward compatibility with U-Boot v2020.04
Needed in order to boot LynxSecure Hypervisor, otherwise
U-Boot will fail at this position and reset the controller
END
Signed-off-by after the commit log.
Also, this isn't a good enough justification. Why is this actually
required for booting this hypervisor? Because all this does is...
---
boot/bootm.c | 27 ++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/boot/bootm.c b/boot/bootm.c
index 4bdca22ea8c..c90c36a6988 100644
--- a/boot/bootm.c
+++ b/boot/bootm.c
@@ -684,22 +684,19 @@ static int bootm_load_os(struct bootm_headers *images,
int boot_progress)
int ret;
ret = booti_setup(load, &relocated_addr, &image_size, false);
- if (ret) {
- printf("Failed to prep arm64 kernel (err=%d)\n", ret);
- return BOOTM_ERR_RESET;
... remove the check on a bad return value, which I'm pretty sure is
something we don't want to do with such a vague commit log.
So please investigate a bit more and provide more info. Which part of
booti_setup() call stack actually fails, why? Is there something we can
or need to do to fix a specific corner case and only that corner case
without breaking others?
Cheers,
Quentin
