On 09.02.25 17:02, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 at 08:53, Heinrich Schuchardt
<heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com> wrote:
On 09.02.25 15:29, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 at 04:52, Heinrich Schuchardt
<heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com> wrote:
If a single configuration node lacks a description, this does not rule out
that another node with a description matches. Anyway we have the default
configuration as a fallback.
So continue if a description is missing.
That field is mandatory, so we should really fail if it is missing.
What problem are you trying to solve here?
Sure the field is needed to make a configuration selectable.
It's actually normally informational. Have you looked a
If the field is informational, we should not worry if it is missing.
CONFIG_FIT_BEST_MATCH? That is how this is supposed to be done. But
with starfive_visionfive2 I see:
# CONFIG_FIT_BEST_MATCH is not set
How would CONFIG_FIT_BEST_MATCH match strings in the EEPROM to a FIT
configuration?
But as long as we can find a good configuration we should boot instead
of leaving the user with a bricked device.
The more likely impact is that people won't bother adding the field on RISC-V.
The current runtime check is inconsistent: You will get an error if the
first config lacks a description but may not get an error if the last
one lacks it. And you are potentially bricking bootable devices.
The right place to check is mkimage. Here you can bail out if a string
is missing without bricking devices.
Best regards
Heinrich
