[PATCH v2 0/7] mkimage: Detect FIT image load address overlaps and fix related test/DTS issues

Aristo Chen jj251510319013 at gmail.com
Mon Mar 9 03:30:31 CET 2026 

Hi TI folks,

I have put some thoughts in the github issue[1] that we are discussing
FIT image spec, could you please take a look when you have time?

Best regards,
Aristo

[1] https://github.com/open-source-firmware/flat-image-tree/issues/32

Aristo Chen <jj251510319013 at gmail.com> 於 2026年2月10日週二 下午4:16寫道：
>
> Hi E Shattow and all,
>
> E Shattow <e at freeshell.de> 於 2026年1月14日週三 上午1:29寫道：
> >
> > Hi Aristo,
> >
> > On 1/13/26 07:09, Aristo Chen wrote:
> > > Hi E Shattow,
> > >
> > > Aristo Chen <jj251510319013 at gmail.com> 於 2025年11月5日週三 下午8:21寫道：
> > >>
> > >> Hi E Shattow,
> > >>
> > >> E Shattow <e at freeshell.de> 於 2025年9月24日 週三 下午9:31寫道：
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi Aristo,
> > >>>
> > >>> On 9/24/25 04:43, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > >>>> On 06:37-20250924, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > >>>>> On 10:59-20250914, Aristo Chen wrote:
> > >>>>>> This patch series enhances FIT image robustness by adding **memory
> > >>>>>> region overlap detection** to `mkimage` and fixing existing overlaps
> > >>>>>> in DTS files and `binman` tests.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [...]
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Looks like i see a build regression in linux-next after this series.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I fat fingered that one.. sorry, I meant u-boot next.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Fails at commit 4d84fa1261eb, last pass was on commit d81c1118580f
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> https://gist.github.com/nmenon/b2fc9e7680cc296062c7dced94105f76
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I  believe there are outstanding comments on V1 that have'nt been
> > >>>> addressed either. Can we revert/drop this series for now while the
> > >>>> comments are addressed?
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Similar to Nishanth, I am seeing a build regression, itb.map:
> > >>>
> > >>> ImagePos    Offset      Size  Name
> > >>> <none>      00000000  <none>    itb
> > >>> <none>      00000000  <none>    fit
> > >>> <none>      00000000  000c1698  uboot
> > >>> <none>      00000000  000c1698  u-boot-nodtb
> > >>> <none>      000c1698  00202128  opensbi
> > >>> <none>      00000000  00202128  opensbi
> > >>>
> > >>> Yields this error:
> > >>> ...
> > >>>  MKIMAGE fit-dtb.blob
> > >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-1'
> > >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-2'
> > >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-3'
> > >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-4'
> > >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-5'
> > >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-6'
> > >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-7'
> > >>>   CAT     u-boot-fit-dtb.bin
> > >>> ...
> > >>>   MKIMAGE u-boot.img
> > >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-1'
> > >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-2'
> > >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-3'
> > >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-4'
> > >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-5'
> > >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-6'
> > >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-7'
> > >>>   COPY    u-boot.dtb
> > >>>   MKIMAGE u-boot-dtb.img
> > >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-1'
> > >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-2'
> > >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-3'
> > >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-4'
> > >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-5'
> > >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-6'
> > >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-7'
> > >>>   BINMAN  .binman_stamp
> > >>> Wrote map file './itb.map' to show errors
> > >>> binman: Error 1 running 'mkimage -t -F ./itb.fit.fit': Warning: not able
> > >>> to get `load` of node 'fdt-1'
> > >>> [Config: conf-1] Error: Overlap detected:
> > >>>   - uboot: [0x40200000 - 0x402c1698]
> > >>>   - opensbi: [0x40000000 - 0x40202128]
> > >>>
> > >>> make[1]: *** [/tmp/u-boot.2.git/Makefile:1339: .binman_stamp] Error 1
> > >>> make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/es/build/u-boot'
> > >>> make: *** [Makefile:198: sub-make] Error 2
> > >>> make: Leaving directory '/tmp/u-boot.2.git'
> > >>>
> > >>> If you would like to reproduce the issue, use config
> > >>> starfive_visionfive2_defconfig and pass to OPENSBI env variable the path
> > >>> of opensbi object 'fw_dynamic.bin' built using PLATFORM=generic, with
> > >>> the ordinary gcc riscv64 toolchain. The starfive visionfive2 board
> > >>> target in U-Boot supports multiple vendors and boards selected at
> > >>> runtime and is an example of a more complex FIT usage that you may be
> > >>> interested in for comparison and testing.
> > >>>
> > >>> Best regards,
> > >>>
> > >>> -E
> > >>
> > >> Sorry that I didn't noticed that my previous email sent to you was not
> > >> including other people
> > >>
> > >> Long story short, I am now able to reproduce the overlap issue that
> > >> you have encountered, and
> > >> I spent some time trying to understand what is opensbi, please correct
> > >> me if I am wrong
> > >>
> > >> AFAICT, there will be 2 types of firmware built, one is
> > >> `fw_payload.bin`, and the other is
> > >> `fw_dynamic.bin`
> > >> - fw_payload.bin: contains the next-stage binary, so the file size
> > >> will be bigger
> > >> - fw_dynamic.bin: provides information about the next boot stage at
> > >> runtime, so the size is smaller
> > >>
> > >> and here are the size of these 2 files built in my environment
> > >> ```
> > >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 ubuntu ubuntu  273048 Oct 25 14:49 fw_dynamic.bin
> > >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 ubuntu ubuntu 2105656 Oct 25 14:49 fw_payload.bin
> > >> ```
> > >>
> > >> When using my overlap checking mechanism, and passing the
> > >> fw_dynamic.bin to build U-Boot,
> > >> there is no overlap issue. However, when using fw_payload.bin, there
> > >> will be an overlap issue.
> > >>
> > >> AFAICT, the SPL will load the opensbi firmware(assuming fw_payload.bin
> > >> here) first, then load
> > >> U-Boot into memory, and then jump to opensbi firmware, so I was a bit
> > >> confused why the
> > >> overlapped opensbi still works?
> > >>
> > >> I will find some time to figure out how the whole loading/booting
> > >> process looks like, but it would
> > >> be greatly appreciated if you can share some insight, thanks!
> > >
> > > I finally had some time to revisit this and managed to get a VisionFive2
> > > board for local testing.
> > >
> > > While trying to make it bootable I noticed the following docs:
> > >   - https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/board/starfive/visionfive2.html#second-stage-bootloader-opensbi-fw-dynamic-bin-u-boot-main
> > >   - https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/StarFive_VisionFive_2#Building_OpenSBI
> > >
> > > Both appear to recommend using OpenSBI’s fw_dynamic.bin when building
> > > U‑Boot. I couldn’t find any guidance on using fw_payload.bin together
> > > with U‑Boot, which made me wonder why fw_payload.bin was used in your
> > > earlier report.
> > >
> >
> > Likely I mixed up the filenames when writing in conversation, as I did
> > when writing on the opensbi mailing list about a dependency tracking bug
> > in opensbi build system:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/opensbi/0d6bf7c7-7605-4ad6-a35c-54efc5230fb8@sifive.com/
> >
> > and
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/opensbi/36cfe431-40fb-470d-b50e-00a139d480f8@freeshell.de/
> >
> > ...which is clearly a mistake to write "OPENSBI=/path/to/fw_payload.bin"
> > when it should instead be "OPENSBI=/path/to/fw_dynamic.bin",
> > acknowledged in the follow-up message:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/opensbi/32873fc7-2cc8-46d5-9f4e-3a16cf95f48a@freeshell.de/
> >
> > > Could you clarify whether there is documentation (or a specific
> > > requirement) that calls for fw_payload.bin in this flow? If the intended
> > > path is fw_dynamic.bin, then the overlap issue disappears for me
> > >
> >
> > For the VisionFive2 and derivative boards, I intended to refer to
> > fw_dynamic.bin only. If I mention otherwise it was in error or for not
> > knowing what I'm looking at and reporting more information than
> > required. There are RISC-V boards not related to VisionFive2 or its
> > StarFive JH-7110 SoC that do use the fw_payload.bin approach but I think
> > I just didn't notice the difference when transcribing to e-mail.
> >
> > > Thanks for your help and guidance.
> > >>
> > >> Best regards,
> > >> Aristo
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Aristo
> >
> > Thanks very much for the follow-up,
> Thanks for letting me know that StarFive VisionFive2 is not affected
> by my patch!
>
> >
> > -E
>
> We’re currently discussing a new proposal[1] for handling TI platforms
> in the FIT image spec. Ahmad Fatoum has a few questions about
> TI-specific implementations—could the TI folks on this thread please
> take a look when you have a moment?
>
> Best regards,
> Aristo
>
> [1] https://github.com/open-source-firmware/flat-image-tree/issues/32

More information about the U-Boot mailing list