On 23.02.22 23:59, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Alper, > > On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 11:58, Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiya...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On 21/02/2022 07:40, Simon Glass wrote: >>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 at 08:53, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 at 10:34, Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiya...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> I can reproduce this and tried a few things, but more issues just kept >>>>> popping up (outside u-boot as well). I got it to a point where the >>>>> command re-packs the FIT and the image but quite wrongly. The offset and >>>>> image-pos properties get added in the FIT, and the image main-section >>>>> just concatenates all entries without regard to set offsets. I'll >>>>> need more time to work those out, then to add tests and send patches. >>>> >>>> I am going to try to merge my fit generator series today. >>>> >>>> One issue I notice is that the conversion to use entry_Section changes >>>> the contents of the self._fit_entries dict. Before it was keyed by >>>> relative path, but entry_section keys self._entries by node name. >> >> Yeah, this causes an error in image.FindEntryPath() while trying to >> replace e.g. "/fit@0x280000/images/u-boot" since there is no "images" >> entry in the FIT. Changing the key to the node name works, but then the >> "binman replace" invocation needs to use e.g. "/fit@0x280000/u-boot". >> >>>> >>>> We may need to split it up. I will see if I can at least merge my >>>> series, which should not make things any worse, then see if I can come >>>> up with ideas. >>>> >>>> Thanks for the diff. >>> >>> I did a bit more fiddling and pushed a tree to u-boot-dm/fit-working >>> >>> It refactors the fit implementation to separate scanning from emitting >>> the tree and I think this might help quite a bit. I'll send out the >>> series when I get a chance in the next few days or so. >> >> I've also managed to somewhat fix the rest of the issues I wrote, so now >> I can replace a FIT entry with a modified one (having a different u-boot >> file), or replace a subentry of the FIT with an arbitrary file. >> >> I couldn't look at your new version much but I'll try to see how good my >> fixes apply on top of it, will probably take me longer to patchify things. > > OK I'm going to send a new series with (most of) your suggested fixes > a new patches, then my refactoring. Just need to get things through > CI. >
What's the status here? I've just rebased over master, a simple revert of this commit no longer works, and the regression is still present. Are there any pending patches that fixes this and I should pick locally in order to rebase/test my pending things? Thanks, Jan -- Siemens AG, Technology Competence Center Embedded Linux
