[PATCH 1/2] spl: Use standard FIT entries

[Michal Simek]

Hi Simon,

On 07. 09. 20 3:43, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Michal,
> 
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 05:03, Michal Simek <michal.simek at xilinx.com> wrote:
>>
>> SPL is creating fit-images DT node when loadables are recorded in selected
>> configuration. Entries which are created are using entry-point and
>> load-addr property names. But there shouldn't be a need to use non standard
>> properties because entry/load are standard FIT properties. But using
>> standard FIT properties enables option to use generic FIT functions to
>> descrease SPL size. Here is result for ZynqMP virt configuration:
>> xilinx_zynqmp_virt: spl/u-boot-spl:all -82 spl/u-boot-spl:rodata -22 spl/u-boot-spl:text -60
>>
>> The patch causes change in run time fit image record.
>> Before:
>> fit-images {
>>         uboot {
>>                 os = "u-boot";
>>                 type = "firmware";
>>                 size = <0xfd520>;
>>                 entry-point = <0x8000000>;
>>                 load-addr = <0x8000000>;
>>         };
>> };
>>
>> After:
>> fit-images {
>>         uboot {
>>                 os = "u-boot";
>>                 type = "firmware";
>>                 size = <0xfd520>;
>>                 entry = <0x8000000>;
>>                 load = <0x8000000>;
>>         };
>> };
>>
>> Replacing calling fdt_getprop_u32() by fit_image_get_entry/load() also
>> enables support for reading entry/load properties recorded in 64bit format.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek at xilinx.com>
>> ---
> 
> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> 
> Isn't there a test that could be updated here?

Are we testing SPL flow?

> 
>>
>> Would be good to know history of fit-images and it's property names but
>> there shouldn't be a need to use non standard names where we have
>> FIT_*_PROP recorded as macros in include/image.h.
> 
> I agree.
> 
>> Concern regarding backward compatibility is definitely valid but not sure
>> how many systems can be affected by this change.
> 
> Me neither. Probably a good idea to fix it.

Fix means keep existing code with warning and add new one next to it.

M