[PATCH 1/4] bootm: Allow ignoring the load address with kernel_noload

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,


On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 at 11:30, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 10:25:00AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 at 14:19, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Nov 05, 2023 at 01:03:51PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > >
> > > > This image type is supposed to ignore the load address. But at present
> > > > it fails if the load address is missing. If it is zero, the image is
> > > > loaded at address 0, which may not work on all boards.
> > > >
> > > > Make use of the kernel_addr_r environment variable, instead, since this
> > > > seems to be a more reliable final address for the kernel.
> > > >
> > > > Another option would be to create a new Kconfig for this, or to use a
> > > > region of memory known to be free, e.g. calculated from the DRAM banks.
> > > > But in any case we should try to avoid conflicting with the
> > > > kernel_addr_r variable. So the approach in this patch seems reasonable
> > > > to me.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > >
> > > How are you creating the image in question here? A noload FIT is
> > > supposed to just supposed to go from where it is. Where do things fall
> > > down later?
> >
> > The image is Image.gz built by Linux, for example. So compression =
> > "gzip" which means that it has to be decompressed.
> >
> > Things fall down as soon as U-Boot looks at the image, since it
> > doesn't have the ARM64 magic.
>
> Can you provide logs and env? "booti" is supposed to handle this case
> already, and if it's not we should figure out when / why it broke.

Do you mean booti handles compression? Yes, I can see that in the code.

But in my case I am using bootm, since it is a FIT.

Regards,
Simon