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

[york sun]

On 02/24/2016 04:30 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi York,
> 
> On 24 February 2016 at 15:55, york sun <york.sun at nxp.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I mean:
> 
> - patch 1: take the existing 32-bit-only code and put it in a new
> fit_image_get_address() functoin
> - patch 2: enhance your new function to support 64-bit
> 
> At present you have these two things co-mingled which I don't think is ideal.
> 

I see. Let me work on it.

York