Hi Quentin,
On 2025-02-05 17:43, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> Hi Jonas,
>
> On 1/29/25 11:36 PM, Jonas Karlman wrote:
>> The v2 image format can support up to 4 embedded images that can be
>> loaded by the BootROM using the back-to-bootrom method.
>>
>> Currently two input files can be passed in using the datafile parameter,
>> separated by a colon (":").
>>
>> Extend the datafile parameter parsing to support up to 4 input files
>> separated by a colon (":") for use with the v2 image format.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jonas Karlman <jo...@kwiboo.se>
>> ---
>> tools/rkcommon.c | 93 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
>> 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/rkcommon.c b/tools/rkcommon.c
>> index 542aca931693..4ff48e81a636 100644
>> --- a/tools/rkcommon.c
>> +++ b/tools/rkcommon.c
>> @@ -148,17 +148,15 @@ static struct spl_info spl_infos[] = {
>> /**
>> * struct spl_params - spl params parsed in check_params()
>> *
>> - * @init_file: Init data file path
>> - * @init_size: Aligned size of init data in bytes
>> - * @boot_file: Boot data file path
>> - * @boot_size: Aligned size of boot data in bytes
>> + * @file: image file path
>> + * @size: aligned size of image in bytes
>
> Not really matching reality though. Could make it easier maybe to have
> an intermediary
>
> struct spl_params_image {
> char *file;
> uint32_t size;
> };
>
> and then have
>
> struct spl_params {
> struct spl_params_image images[4];
> };
>
> ?
Sound good, will use in v2.
>
>> */
>>
>> struct spl_params {
>> - char *init_file;
>> - uint32_t init_size;
>> - char *boot_file;
>> - uint32_t boot_size;
>> + struct {
>> + char *file;
>> + uint32_t size;
>> + } images[4];
>> };
>>
>> static struct spl_params spl_params = { 0 };
>> @@ -238,31 +236,32 @@ int rkcommon_check_params(struct image_tool_params
>> *params)
>> if (!rkcommon_get_spl_info(params->imagename))
>> goto err_spl_info;
>>
>> - spl_params.init_file = params->datafile;
>> + spl_params.images[0].file = params->datafile;
>> + for (i = 1; i < ARRAY_SIZE(spl_params.images); i++) {
>> + spl_params.images[i].file =
>> + strchr(spl_params.images[i - 1].file, ':');
>> + if (!spl_params.images[i].file)
>> + break;
>>
>> - spl_params.boot_file = strchr(spl_params.init_file, ':');
>> - if (spl_params.boot_file) {
>> - *spl_params.boot_file = '\0';
>> - spl_params.boot_file += 1;
>> + *spl_params.images[i].file = '\0';
>> + spl_params.images[i].file += 1;
>> }
>>
>> - size = rkcommon_get_aligned_filesize(params, spl_params.init_file);
>> - if (size < 0)
>> - return EXIT_FAILURE;
>> - spl_params.init_size = size;
>> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(spl_params.images); i++) {
>> + if (!spl_params.images[i].file)
>> + break;
>>
>> - /* Boot file is optional, and only for back-to-bootrom functionality. */
>> - if (spl_params.boot_file) {
>> - size = rkcommon_get_aligned_filesize(params,
>> spl_params.boot_file);
>> + size = rkcommon_get_aligned_filesize(params,
>> + spl_params.images[i].file);
>> if (size < 0)
>> return EXIT_FAILURE;
>> - spl_params.boot_size = size;
>> + spl_params.images[i].size = size;
>> }
>>
>
> Can't we merge the two for-loops?
Possible, suspect I kept it as two loops to avoid having to work on [i]
and [i - 1] too much in same loop. Do you have any suggestion on how to
merge the two for-loops to simplify this?
Regards,
Jonas
>
> The patch diff makes sense to me :)
>
> Cheers,
> Quentin
