[PATCH V2] mkimage: fit: Do not tail-pad fitImage with external data

[Marek Vasut]

On 5/7/20 10:46 PM, Samuel Holland wrote:
> On 5/6/20 12:02 PM, trini at konsulko.com (Tom Rini) wrote:
>>>>>> I'm not sure that it is.  Can we easily/safely memmove the data to be
>>>>>> aligned?  Is that really a better option in this case than ensuring
>>>>>> alignment within the file?
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't we use the new mkimage -B option to enforce the alignment IFF and
>>>>> only IFF it is required ? 
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps.  But..
>>>>
>>>>> Then we can enforce it separately for 32bit
>>>>> and 64bit platforms to 4 and 8 bytes respectively even.
>>>>
>>>> It's 8 bytes for both.  It's possible that Linux doesn't hard fail if
>>>> you only do 4 byte alignment but the documented requirement is 8, for
>>>> arm32.
>>>
>>> With Linux you usually need to move the kernel anyway, no ? It's 2 MiB
>>> for arm64 for example.
>>
>> For arm64 you have to move it to where text_offset says it needs to be.
>> For arm32 the common (always, practically?) case is you're firing off
>> the zImage which does what's needed.  But..
>>
>>> And what you usually parse in-place would be the DT then.
>>
>> Yes, the practical case is that it's a DT and that needs 8 byte
>> alignment.  And we should just get back to aligning that correctly.
>> Going back to the v1 thread, it turns out the answer to "why do we even
>> have this padding?" is "we need the DT to be aligned".
> 
> This change broke SPL booting for me on MACH_SUN50I as well. One thing that I
> haven't seen brought up yet is that SPL FIT code assumes exactly a 4-byte
> alignment of external data after the FIT. In spl_load_simple_fit():
> 
>  /*
>   * For FIT with external data, figure out where the external images
>   * start. This is the base for the data-offset properties in each
>   * image.
>   */
>  size = fdt_totalsize(fit);
>  size = (size + 3) & ~3;
>  size = board_spl_fit_size_align(size);
>  base_offset = (size + 3) & ~3;

Somehow this doesn't match the 8-byte alignment Tom was suggesting.
And that only leads me to believe that we can either make assumptions
about alignment, which would very likely fail one way or the other OR we
can say that for SPL as a special case, we enforce some alignment.

But that in turn fails for fitImage with embedded data, where the
embedded data are always aligned to 4 bytes, because that's how DTC
aligns properties.