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

[Jan Kiszka]

On 23.02.22 23:59, Simon Glass wrote:
> 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.
> 

What's the status here? I've just rebased over master, a simple revert
of this commit no longer works, and the regression is still present. Are
there any pending patches that fixes this and I should pick locally in
order to rebase/test my pending things?

Thanks,
Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Technology
Competence Center Embedded Linux