Dear Stephen Warren,
In message <74cdbe0f657a3d45afbb94109fb122ff173f9a5...@hqmail01.nvidia.com> you
wrote:
> Wolfgang Denk wrote at Tuesday, November 08, 2011 9:07 AM:
> > In message <1320164902-24190-1-git-send-email-swar...@nvidia.com> you wrote:
> > > image_get_ram_disk() and image_get_kernel() perform operations in a
> > > consistent order. Modify image_get_fdt() to do things the same way.
> > > This allows a later change to insert some image header manipulations
> > > into these three functions in a consistent fashion.
> ...
> > > @@ -1131,14 +1131,19 @@ static const image_header_t *image_get_fdt(ulong
> > > fdt_addr)
> > > {
> > > const image_header_t *fdt_hdr = (const image_header_t *)fdt_addr;
> > >
> > > - image_print_contents(fdt_hdr);
> > > + if (!image_check_magic(fdt_hdr)) {
> > > + fdt_error("fdt header bad magic number\n");
> > > + return NULL;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > - puts(" Verifying Checksum ... ");
> > > if (!image_check_hcrc(fdt_hdr)) {
> > > fdt_error("fdt header checksum invalid");
> > > return NULL;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + image_print_contents(fdt_hdr);
> > > +
> > > + puts(" Verifying Checksum ... ");
> > > if (!image_check_dcrc(fdt_hdr)) {
> > > fdt_error("fdt checksum invalid");
> > > return NULL;
...
> > The rule in U-Boot when generating output is to print a message
> > before you start an action, and then either print an OK or an error
> > message. The reason for this is debug support: if neither an OK nor
> > an error comes you know that the test somehow crashed.
...
> The new code is exactly the same as the existing image_get_kernel() and
> image_get_ramdisk(). Are those wrong? I wouldn't want to fix my patch to
> conform to some supposed standard when the existing code that's been
> accepted doesn't conform to that standard, or would I be responsible for
> fixing up that too?
The new code is different from what was there before.
Now we have:
1134 image_print_contents(fdt_hdr);
1135
1136 puts(" Verifying Checksum ... ");
1137 if (!image_check_hcrc(fdt_hdr)) {
1138 fdt_error("fdt header checksum invalid");
1139 return NULL;
1140 }
1141
1142 if (!image_check_dcrc(fdt_hdr)) {
1143 fdt_error("fdt checksum invalid");
1144 return NULL;
i.e.
image_print_contents(fdt_hdr);
puts(" Verifying Checksum ... ");
image_check_hcrc(fdt_hdr);
image_check_dcrc(fdt_hdr)
After your patch we have:
image_check_magic();
image_check_hcrc()
image_print_contents(();
puts(" Verifying Checksum ... ");
image_check_dcrc();
So before, we have the "Verifying Checksum" before running any of the
image_check_*() functions, while with your patch we run two of them
before that.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de
Intel's new motto: United we stand. Divided we fall!
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
