[PATCH v2 4/5] binman: Convert FIT entry type to a subclass of Section entry type

[Simon Glass]

Hi Alper,

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 11:58, Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiyasak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 21/02/2022 07:40, Simon Glass wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 at 08:53, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 at 10:34, Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiyasak at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I can reproduce this and tried a few things, but more issues just kept
> >>> popping up (outside u-boot as well). I got it to a point where the
> >>> command re-packs the FIT and the image but quite wrongly. The offset and
> >>> image-pos properties get added in the FIT, and the image main-section
> >>> just concatenates all entries without regard to set offsets. I'll
> >>> need more time to work those out, then to add tests and send patches.
> >>
> >> I am going to try to merge my fit generator series today.
> >>
> >> One issue I notice is that the conversion to use entry_Section changes
> >> the contents of the self._fit_entries dict. Before it was keyed by
> >> relative path, but entry_section keys self._entries by node name.
>
> Yeah, this causes an error in image.FindEntryPath() while trying to
> replace e.g. "/fit at 0x280000/images/u-boot" since there is no "images"
> entry in the FIT. Changing the key to the node name works, but then the
> "binman replace" invocation needs to use e.g. "/fit at 0x280000/u-boot".
>
> >>
> >> We may need to split it up. I will see if I can at least merge my
> >> series, which should not make things any worse, then see if I can come
> >> up with ideas.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the diff.
> >
> > I did a bit more fiddling and pushed a tree to u-boot-dm/fit-working
> >
> > It refactors the fit implementation to separate scanning from emitting
> > the tree and I think this might help quite a bit. I'll send out the
> > series when I get a chance in the next few days or so.
>
> I've also managed to somewhat fix the rest of the issues I wrote, so now
> I can replace a FIT entry with a modified one (having a different u-boot
> file), or replace a subentry of the FIT with an arbitrary file.
>
> I couldn't look at your new version much but I'll try to see how good my
> fixes apply on top of it, will probably take me longer to patchify things.

OK I'm going to send a new series with (most of) your suggested fixes
a new patches, then my refactoring. Just need to get things through
CI.

Regards,
Simon