On 08.08.2011 21:05, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Hi Dirk, > > Le 05/08/2011 20:42, Dirk Behme a écrit : >> From: Dirk Behme<dirk.be...@googlemail.com> >> >> Using mkimage with e.g. >> >> tools/mkimage -A arm -T firmware -O u-boot -d u-boot.bin foo.img >> >> gives a warning >> >> "Unknown OMAP image type - 5" >> >> while it seems that the image itself is created successfully. >> >> This does come from the patch "mkimage: Add OMAP boot image support". >> >> Reordering the init_xx_image_type() sequence does make this >> message go away. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dirk Behme<dirk.be...@googlemail.com> >> CC: John Rigby<john.ri...@linaro.org> >> CC: Aneesh V<ane...@ti.com> >> CC: Sandeep Paulraj<s-paul...@ti.com> >> >> --- >> >> This is reproducable with the recent mainline mkimage where the >> patch "mkimage: Add OMAP boot image support" is applied: >> >> http://git.denx.de/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=u-boot.git;a=commit;h=3decb14abe76d244ba98fd158ef95f89e7e37d70 >> >> >> tools/mkimage.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> Index: u-boot.git/tools/mkimage.c >> =================================================================== >> --- u-boot.git.orig/tools/mkimage.c >> +++ u-boot.git/tools/mkimage.c >> @@ -156,12 +156,12 @@ main (int argc, char **argv) >> init_imx_image_type (); >> /* Init FIT image generation/list support */ >> init_fit_image_type (); >> - /* Init TI OMAP Boot image generation/list support */ >> - init_omap_image_type(); >> /* Init Default image generation/list support */ >> init_default_image_type (); >> /* Init Davinci UBL support */ >> init_ubl_image_type(); >> + /* Init TI OMAP Boot image generation/list support */ >> + init_omap_image_type(); >> >> params.cmdname = *argv; >> params.addr = params.ep = 0; >> _______________________________________________ >> U-Boot mailing list >> U-Boot@lists.denx.de >> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot > > Any idea why reordering fixes the issue?
No, unfortunately not. I looked at the other patches touching this section of mkimage.c and it looked like everybody is adding new init functions below the existing ones. And this helped ;) I hoped that John or Aneesh would comment on this... > Seems to me like init > functions are not / should not be dependent on order, so the "fix" > seems fragile to me, at least as long as we cannot add a good > explanation. Yes, I agree. John? Aneesh? Any idea? Best regards Dirk _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
