[U-Boot] [PATCH] image: fix getenv_bootm_size() function

[Hannes Schmelzer]

On 18.12.2015 06:17, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Currently, this function returns wrong size if "bootm_low" is defined,
> but "bootm_size" is not.
>
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com>
> ---
>
>   common/image.c | 4 ++--
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/common/image.c b/common/image.c
> index d63d9e0..f4a1dc8 100644
> --- a/common/image.c
> +++ b/common/image.c
> @@ -472,9 +472,9 @@ phys_size_t getenv_bootm_size(void)
>   
>   
>   #if defined(CONFIG_ARM) && defined(CONFIG_NR_DRAM_BANKS)
> -	return gd->bd->bi_dram[0].size - tmp;
> +	return gd->bd->bi_dram[0].size - (tmp - gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start);
>   #else
> -	return gd->bd->bi_memsize - tmp;
> +	return gd->bd->bi_memsize - (tmp - gd->bd->bi_memstart);
>   #endif
>   }
Hi Masahiro,

your commit has been merged on 19.1. this year.
Today i ran a test on my tseries board with most current u-boot/master.

I ran into trouble booting my linux kernel:

---
Kernel image @ 0x80200000 [ 0x000000 - 0x222720 ]
## Loading init Ramdisk from Legacy Image at 80a00000 ...
    Image Name:
    Image Type:   ARM Linux RAMDisk Image (uncompressed)
    Data Size:    12452646 Bytes = 11.9 MiB
    Load Address: 00000000
    Entry Point:  00000000
## Flattened Device Tree blob at 80100000
    Booting using the fdt blob at 0x80100000
ERROR: Failed to allocate 0xbe0326 bytes below 0x10000000.
ramdisk - allocation error
FDT creation failed! hanging...### ERROR ### Please RESET the board ###
---

I debugged  bit am came to the conclusio, that the line

+	return gd->bd->bi_dram[0].size - (tmp - gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start);

brings me into trouble.

On my board DRAM is configured as follows:
U-Boot (BuR V2.0)# bdinfo
arch_number = 0xFFFFFFFF
boot_params = 0x80000100
DRAM bank   = 0x00000000
*-> start    = 0x80000000**
**-> size     = 0x10000000**
*
so size minus start would give a negative number.
I tried local revert of this commit and everything works as before.

more correct would be

+	return gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start - (tmp - gd->bd->bi_dram[0].size);


whats your thinking about?

best regards,
Hannes