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

[Simon Glass]

Hi Michal,

On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 02:27, Michal Simek <michal.simek at xilinx.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

No, I mean use your code as here and document with a test, etc. If it
breaks anything, it can be fixed.

Regards,
SImon