[PATCH] arm64: zynqmp: Do not describe u-boot.itb if SPL is disabled

[Ilias Apalodimas]

Hi Michal

Apologies for the late reply

On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 09:48, Michal Simek <michal.simek at amd.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/5/24 16:47, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 05:18:42PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> >> There is no reason to describe u-boot.itb on system without SPL. Pretty
> >> much this is cover all systems which are using only boot.bin which contains
> >> all images inside.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek at amd.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >>   board/xilinx/common/board.c | 2 +-
> >>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/board/xilinx/common/board.c b/board/xilinx/common/board.c
> >> index 9641ed307b75..4f38b7d27684 100644
> >> --- a/board/xilinx/common/board.c
> >> +++ b/board/xilinx/common/board.c
> >> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ struct efi_fw_image fw_images[] = {
> >>              .image_index = 1,
> >>      },
> >>   #endif
> >> -#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID)
> >> +#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) && defined(CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME)
> >
> > What happens if this is defined with CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME="" ?
>
> Your comment is valid but I am not aware about any CONFIG_IS, etc which checks
> that string is not empty. If name is "" it will return yes and second image is
> doing to be defined.
>
> But I found handling in the code like this.
>
>   36 #ifdef CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE
>   37                 if (strlen(CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE)) {
>
> which can be used in my second patch not to describe second image in
> set_dfu_alt_info() if string is empty.

Yes, I think that's ok. The problem is that if we merge this as-is, we
would have to disable CONFIG_SPL_FS_FAT to make this work, which is a
bit misleading

Cheers
/Ilias
>
> Thanks,
> Michal