[PATCH v2 4/5] binman: Convert FIT entry type to a subclass of Section entry type

[Jan Kiszka]

On 28.02.22 14:56, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Jan,
> 
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 04:48, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka at siemens.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 23.02.22 23:59, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> Hi Alper,
>>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 11:58, Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiyasak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 21/02/2022 07:40, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 at 08:53, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 at 10:34, Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiyasak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I can reproduce this and tried a few things, but more issues just kept
>>>>>>> popping up (outside u-boot as well). I got it to a point where the
>>>>>>> command re-packs the FIT and the image but quite wrongly. The offset and
>>>>>>> image-pos properties get added in the FIT, and the image main-section
>>>>>>> just concatenates all entries without regard to set offsets. I'll
>>>>>>> need more time to work those out, then to add tests and send patches.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am going to try to merge my fit generator series today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One issue I notice is that the conversion to use entry_Section changes
>>>>>> the contents of the self._fit_entries dict. Before it was keyed by
>>>>>> relative path, but entry_section keys self._entries by node name.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, this causes an error in image.FindEntryPath() while trying to
>>>> replace e.g. "/fit at 0x280000/images/u-boot" since there is no "images"
>>>> entry in the FIT. Changing the key to the node name works, but then the
>>>> "binman replace" invocation needs to use e.g. "/fit at 0x280000/u-boot".
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We may need to split it up. I will see if I can at least merge my
>>>>>> series, which should not make things any worse, then see if I can come
>>>>>> up with ideas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the diff.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did a bit more fiddling and pushed a tree to u-boot-dm/fit-working
>>>>>
>>>>> It refactors the fit implementation to separate scanning from emitting
>>>>> the tree and I think this might help quite a bit. I'll send out the
>>>>> series when I get a chance in the next few days or so.
>>>>
>>>> I've also managed to somewhat fix the rest of the issues I wrote, so now
>>>> I can replace a FIT entry with a modified one (having a different u-boot
>>>> file), or replace a subentry of the FIT with an arbitrary file.
>>>>
>>>> I couldn't look at your new version much but I'll try to see how good my
>>>> fixes apply on top of it, will probably take me longer to patchify things.
>>>
>>> OK I'm going to send a new series with (most of) your suggested fixes
>>> a new patches, then my refactoring. Just need to get things through
>>> CI.
>>>
>>
>> What's the status here? I've just rebased over master, a simple revert
>> of this commit no longer works, and the regression is still present. Are
>> there any pending patches that fixes this and I should pick locally in
>> order to rebase/test my pending things?
> 
> Please see this series and review if you can:
> 
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/user/todo/uboot/?series=287681

https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=287681

> 
> I did not add a test for your issue though. Can you take a look?
> 

I cannot comment on details. However, a quick test did not indicate that
the series by itself changes the situation: same error.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Technology
Competence Center Embedded Linux