[PATCH v3 01/11] spl: Use FIT data address as fallback when 'load' property is absent

[Padhi, Beleswar]

Hi Tom,

On 1/2/2026 8:25 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2026 at 08:47:10AM -0600, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 11:06:11PM +0530, Beleswar Padhi wrote:
>>
>>> In cases where the 'load' property is not defined in a FIT image node,
>>> fallback to using the data address returned by `fit_image_get_data()`.
>>> This enables FIT images to omit the 'load' property during FIT creation.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Beleswar Padhi <b-padhi at ti.com>
>>> ---
>>> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>>
>>> v3: Changelog:
>>> 1. None
>>>
>>> Link to v2:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250506104202.16741-3-b-padhi@ti.com/
>>>
>>> v2: Changelog:
>>> 1. New patch. Add support to load images without 'load' property.
>>>
>>>   common/spl/spl_fit.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
>>>   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/common/spl/spl_fit.c b/common/spl/spl_fit.c
>>> index a588d13eb40..c18c98b2959 100644
>>> --- a/common/spl/spl_fit.c
>>> +++ b/common/spl/spl_fit.c
>>> @@ -803,6 +803,8 @@ int spl_load_simple_fit(struct spl_image_info *spl_image,
>>>   {
>>>   	struct spl_image_info image_info;
>>>   	struct spl_fit_info ctx;
>>> +	const void *fit_image_loadaddr;
>>> +	size_t fit_image_size;
>>>   	int node = -1;
>>>   	int ret;
>>>   	int index = 0;
>>> @@ -893,7 +895,19 @@ int spl_load_simple_fit(struct spl_image_info *spl_image,
>>>   		if (firmware_node == node)
>>>   			continue;
>>>   
>>> -		image_info.load_addr = 0;
>>> +		/*
>>> +		 * If the 'load' property is not present in the image node,
>>> +		 * use the FIT image's data address as the fallback load
>>> +		 * address. This allows flexibility in omitting the load address
>>> +		 * during FIT creation time.
>>> +		 */
>>> +		ret = fit_image_get_data(ctx.fit, node,
>>> +					 &fit_image_loadaddr, &fit_image_size);
>>> +		if (ret < 0)
>>> +			panic("Error accessing node = %d in FIT (%d)\n", node,
>>> +			      ret);
>>> +
>>> +		image_info.load_addr = (ulong)fit_image_loadaddr;
>>>   		ret = load_simple_fit(info, offset, &ctx, node, &image_info);
>>>   		if (ret < 0 && ret != -EBADSLT) {
>>>   			printf("%s: can't load image loadables index %d (ret = %d)\n",
>> What's the IH_TYPE here? Saying to use something in-place is not always
>> safe.
> Looking at the rest of the series, and then going back to v1 and:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/b6bc14fc-c823-4376-939f-2c0e6b120a2c@ti.com/
> we're IH_TYPE_STANDALONE which *does* require a load address


Yes.. we are trying to change that: support fit images with optional
load addresses. Ideally, load_simple_fit[0] would grab the loadaddr from
the fitNode, and if it is absent, it would use the address that we
populate as fallback above.
https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/blob/master/common/spl/spl_fit.c#L261


Please feel free to let me know if you are seeing any issues with this flow.

>   (see boot/image-fit.c).


https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/blob/master/boot/image-fit.c?ref_type=heads#L545-554
Here, we are just printing unavailable and not failing anywhere based on 
IH_TYPE_STANDALONE...
Could you please point out if I am missing something..?

Thanks,
Beleswar

> You might need to look in to a new type or see if
> another type is reasonable, that doesn't already expect a load address
> set.
>