[PATCH 00/13] boot: Make fit_image_load() easier to maintain

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 at 10:26, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 10:54:09AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
>
> > Before fit_image_load() was created, the code to load kernels, ramdisks
> > and devicetrees from a FIT was spread around many functions. By
> > combining most of the code in one place, it became possible to add more
> > features in a consistent way. The 'loadables' feature was much easier to
> > plumb in, for example.
> >
> > While fit_image_load() was a substantial advance, it has never been a
> > svelte function and the passing years have not been entirely kind. With
> > a few new features on the horizon, this is a good time to improve the
> > implementation.
> >
> > This series splits much of the code from fit_image_load() into a number
> > of smaller functions. Most of the changes are fairly mechanical, with
> > just a few renames and tweaks here and there.
> >
> > This should make the function much easier to maintain. It may also
> > encourage someone to take a look at its callers, which could also use
> > some attention.
> >
> > Code-size impact: about +8 bytes on aarch64 and +24-40 bytes on arm, due
> > to the compiler's register allocation across the new helper functions.
> >
> >
> > Simon Glass (13):
> >   boot: Split out the first part of fit_image_load()
> >   boot: Move call to fit_image_select() and rename it
> >   boot: Tidy up setting of the OS arch on host builds
> >   boot: Move type and OS checking into a new function
> >   boot: Move handling of the load_op into a separate function
> >   boot: Move obtaining data from a FIT image into a function
> >   boot: Check the image is allowed before setting os.arch
> >   boot: Move the architecture check into check_allowed()
> >   boot: Move image-decompression into a separate function
> >   boot: Move decomp_image() into handle_load_op()
> >   boot: Move setting the OS arch into check_allowed()
> >   boot: Drop unnecessary data variable
> >   boot: Tidy local variables in fit_image_load()
>
> I've reviewed through 5, and I assume 6-13 have similar issues as the
> rest. Please think about that before submitting a v2, thanks.

It is hard to be to figure out whether you are saying that this is
hard to review (which I agree). If so, I could perhaps split it up
into more patches.

Or is it that you don't like the end result?

Regards,
Simon