Hi Nikita, On 2026-06-19T12:52:56, Nikita Shubin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Changes in v2: > - EDITME: describe what is new in this series revision. > - EDITME: use bulletpoints and terse descriptions. Please fill in the b4 EDITME placeholders so reviewers can see what changed since v1. > Question is - if Full FIT wasn't tested with RISC-V U-Boot SPL or i am > doing something wrong ? I suspect you are right - SPL_LOAD_FIT_FULL is rarely enabled and most RISC-V boards use the non-FULL FIT path. Thanks for looking into it. The series is missing test coverage. See test/image/ and the SPL sandbox tests; OpenSBI loadable handling should grow a regression test, otherwise this will silently break again. Please can you add one, or say in the cover letter why it is not feasible. On the design - stashing uboot_addr and kernel_addr in spl_image_info as a side channel from spl_load_fit_image() to spl_invoke_opensbi() works, but feels indirect. The real bug is that spl_invoke_opensbi() looks in the wrong FDT (the OS DTB rather than the FIT). Would it be cleaner to keep a pointer to the FIT itself around for this lookup, rather than caching addresses by OS type? What do you think? Regards, Simon
