On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 03:41:05PM +0000, Dorde Stojicevic wrote: > 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 > --- > boot/bootm.c | 27 ++++++++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
This is an interesting find. And everything Quentin said applies. Also,
the patch as-sent doesn't apply cleanly due to spacing issues, possibly
from copy/paste to your email client?
Now, taking this patch and re-formatting things a bit, if do a "git diff
--ignore-all-space":
diff --git a/boot/bootm.c b/boot/bootm.c
index 4bdca22ea8cf..9743051160ed 100644
--- a/boot/bootm.c
+++ b/boot/bootm.c
@@ -684,11 +684,7 @@ 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;
- }
-
+ if (ret == 0) {
/* Handle BOOTM_STATE_LOADOS */
if (relocated_addr != load) {
printf("Moving Image from 0x%lx to 0x%lx,
end=0x%lx\n",
Is the interesting part. And you say this is on ARM, so we look at
booti_setup in arch/arm/lib/image.c. The failure cases of the function
is only "Bad Linux ARM64 Image magic!". So what are you trying to boot
here, and is it really acting like a Linux Kernel "Image" file, which
has a specific magic value? Or are we falling down to this case when we
should not be?
Since it sounds like you can reproduce this rather easily, it might be
good to use "git bisect" to narrow down which exact commit broke your
use case, and we can work from there.
--
Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
