[PATCH v2] boot/fit: fix misleading comment

[David Lechner]

On 4/9/26 8:15 AM, Julien Stephan wrote:
> When load address is specified but set to 0, we ignore it and load in
> place instead. The current comment is misleading, so update it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Julien Stephan <jstephan at baylibre.com>
> ---
> It turns out that the else is not useless. The comment associated to it,
> was misleading, so update the comment instead of removing the else
> branch
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - update comment instead of removing else branch
> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260324-boot-fit-fix-8-byte-alignement-for-overlays-v1-1-257b132b6bda@baylibre.com
> ---
>  boot/image-fit.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/boot/image-fit.c b/boot/image-fit.c
> index 067ad236081..2d2709aa5b1 100644
> --- a/boot/image-fit.c
> +++ b/boot/image-fit.c
> @@ -2282,7 +2282,7 @@ int fit_image_load(struct bootm_headers *images, ulong addr,
>  		printf("   Loading %s from 0x%08lx to 0x%08lx\n",
>  		       prop_name, data, load);
>  	} else {
> -		load = data;	/* No load address specified */
> +		load = data;	/* load address specified but set to 0 */

It would be even more clear to me if it said something like:

"fit_image_get_load() succeeded but it set load address to 0".


>  	}
>  
>  	comp = IH_COMP_NONE;
> 
> ---
> base-commit: f0000b4a57e9edf8ff8454b9056d767466dff57f
> change-id: 20260324-boot-fit-fix-8-byte-alignement-for-overlays-381b0a17bf4e
> 
> Best regards,