Hi Simon, Everything noted and agreed for all patches and comments, will be fixed.
Thank you for your professional and kind review. On Sat, 2026-08-08 at 07:49 -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Nikita, > > On 2026-08-07T08:06:41, Nikita Shubin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > This series improves CONFIG_SPL_LOAD_FIT_FULL support on RISC-V, > > primarily to enable loading OpenSBI as firmware and recording > > loadable images (e.g., U-Boot) into the FDT passed to the next boot > > stage. This aligns spl_load_fit_image() with the behaviour already > > present in spl_load_simple_fit(). > > Just to check, what is the motivation for using LOAD_FIT_FULL here > rather than the simple path? spl_load_simple_fit() already loads > OpenSBI as firmware and records loadables, and is what existing RISC- > V > boards use today. Please can you explain in the cover letter why the > full path is needed for your use case (e.g. full FIT verification), > to > justify the extra code in each board's SPL? > > > - This works only if FIT Image contains dtb blob, > > spl_load_simple_fit() on the other hand relocates gd->fdt_blob to > > the end of U-Boot; > > It's currently unclear to me if spl_load_fit_image() should do > > the same. > > I suspect it should, since boards ought not to see different > behaviour > depending on which path is enabled. That can be a follow-on series, > but please can you mention the limitation in the commit message so it > is not forgotten? > > > - I am not sure if sandbox test is a right thing to do, still i > > think it's better than relying on QEMU for testing in this case; > > Yes, a sandbox test is the right approach - the spl_load tests exist > for exactly this purpose and run in CI on every commit, so please > keep > it. Since the test constructs its own FIT at runtime, the grafted > image you used for manual testing is not needed for CI, which seems > fine to me. > > Regards, > Simon Yours, Shubin.
