[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH v4 3/3] common: Fix load and entry addresses in FIT image

[york sun]

On 02/16/2016 08:02 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi York,
> 
> On 12 February 2016 at 13:59, York Sun <york.sun at nxp.com> wrote:
>> FIT image supports more than 32 bits in addresses by using #address-cell
>> field. However the address length is not handled when parsing FIT images.
>>
> 
> nit: How about saying "fix this by adding support for 64-bit
> addresses" or similar
> 

Sure. I can fix that.

>> Signed-off-by: York Sun <york.sun at nxp.com>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v4:
>>   Separate ulong to phys_addr_t change to another patch.
>>
>> Changes in v3:
>>   Define PRIpa for host and target in common/image-fit.c so printf works
>>   properly for 32-, 64-bit targets and host tools.
>>
>> Changes in v2:
>>   Make a common function for both load and entry addresses.
>>   Simplify calculation of addresses in a similar way as fdtdec_get_number()
>>   fdtdec_get_number() is not used, or too many files need to be included
>>     and/or twisted for host tool
>>   Continue to use %08llx for print format for load and entry addresses
>>     because %pa does not always work for host tool (mkimage)
>>
>>  common/image-fit.c |   54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>>  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/common/image-fit.c b/common/image-fit.c
>> index bfa76a2..c000475 100644
>> --- a/common/image-fit.c
>> +++ b/common/image-fit.c
>> @@ -433,7 +433,7 @@ void fit_image_print(const void *fit, int image_noffset, const char *p)
>>
>>         if ((type == IH_TYPE_KERNEL) || (type == IH_TYPE_STANDALONE) ||
>>             (type == IH_TYPE_RAMDISK)) {
>> -               fit_image_get_entry(fit, image_noffset, &entry);
>> +               ret = fit_image_get_entry(fit, image_noffset, &entry);
>>                 printf("%s  Entry Point:  ", p);
>>                 if (ret)
>>                         printf("unavailable\n");
>> @@ -675,6 +675,34 @@ int fit_image_get_comp(const void *fit, int noffset, uint8_t *comp)
>>         return 0;
>>  }
>>
>> +static int fit_image_get_address(const void *fit, int noffset, char *name,
>> +                         phys_addr_t *load)
>> +{
>> +       int len, cell_len;
>> +       const fdt32_t *cell;
>> +       unsigned long long load64 = 0;
>> +
>> +       cell = fdt_getprop(fit, noffset, name, &len);
>> +       if (cell == NULL) {
>> +               fit_get_debug(fit, noffset, name, len);
>> +               return -1;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       if (len > sizeof(phys_addr_t)) {
>> +               printf("Unsupported %s address size\n", name);
>> +               return -1;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       cell_len = len >> 2;
>> +       /* Use load64 to avoid compiling warning for 32-bit target */
>> +       while (cell_len--) {
>> +               load64 = (load64 << 32) | uimage_to_cpu(*cell);
>> +               cell++;
>> +       }
>> +       *load = (phys_addr_t)load64;
>> +
>> +       return 0;
>> +}
>>  /**
>>   * fit_image_get_load() - get load addr property for given component image node
>>   * @fit: pointer to the FIT format image header
>> @@ -690,17 +718,7 @@ int fit_image_get_comp(const void *fit, int noffset, uint8_t *comp)
>>   */
>>  int fit_image_get_load(const void *fit, int noffset, phys_addr_t *load)
>>  {
>> -       int len;
>> -       const uint32_t *data;
>> -
>> -       data = fdt_getprop(fit, noffset, FIT_LOAD_PROP, &len);
>> -       if (data == NULL) {
>> -               fit_get_debug(fit, noffset, FIT_LOAD_PROP, len);
>> -               return -1;
>> -       }
>> -
>> -       *load = uimage_to_cpu(*data);
>> -       return 0;
>> +       return fit_image_get_address(fit, noffset, FIT_LOAD_PROP, load);
> 
> I think it would make sense to have your new fit_image_get_address()
> in one patch, and the enhancement to support more address sizes in
> another.

The new fit_image_get_address() gets correct address. The rest of change is to
use the new function. I don't think they can be separated. Maybe I don't
understand your comment.

I am preparing a new version. Please comment on that if you still feel the same.

York