booti_setup() for kernel_noload images on arm64 to obtain a
> suitable aligned address to which the image shall be relocated.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut
> Cc: Bin Chen
> Cc: Masahiro Yamada
> Cc: Tom Rini
> ---
> V2: Protect the ARM64 booti bit with if IS_ENABLED(CMD_BOOTI)
> V3:
ned boundary or not is to be ignored. This is useful ie.
> in case the Image is wrapped in another envelope, ie. fitImage and not
> relocating it but moving it would corrupt the envelope.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut
> Cc: Bin Chen
> Cc: Masahiro Yamada
> Cc: Tom Rini
> ---
> V
ess = 0x%08lx\n",
> - images->ep);
> + debug("* kernel: cmdline image address = 0x%08lx\n", ld);
> }
>
> ret = booti_setup(ld, _addr, _size);
>
Reviewed-by: Bin Chen <bin.c...@linaro.org>
> --
> 2.
ore tab indentation.
>
>
Thanks Masahiro, didn't know u-boot prefer tab!
Reviewed-by: Bin Chen <bin.c...@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com>
> ---
>
> arch/arm/lib/image.c | 92 ++
>
On 6 February 2018 at 13:12, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 10:31:10AM +1100, Bin Chen wrote:
>
> > Hello Tom,
> >
> > Any feedback on this?
>
> It's on my list to grab soon, thanks!
>
> Excellent! Thanks!
> >
Hello Tom,
Any feedback on this?
On 27 January 2018 at 16:59, Bin Chen <bin.c...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> I rebased the two patches submitted (quite )a while ago on top of
> current U-boot master fb4413295c765aa8c013650984dc2d908964c81d
> (and there were no conflicts).
>
&g
it differently. say,
cmd/booti.c just do a manually, while in the bootm path, we can use
bootm_load_os(with some changes).
v2:
- fix review comments for indentation
- fix the comment for booti_setup
- rebase to lastest u-boot
- improve the commit comment
Signed-off-by: Bin Chen <bin.c...@linaro.
as well if that proposal won't be accepted. But don't do
any harm as well.
[1] https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/c/417447/
Signed-off-by: Bin Chen <bin.c...@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com>
---
common/image-android.c | 19 +++
inc
oot/commit/8463e6177654026746161487d0f0bd8998bb7a5b
Bin Chen (2):
parse the second area of android image
move booti_setup to arch/arm/lig/image.c
arch/arm/lib/Makefile | 2 +-
arch/arm/lib/image.c | 76 +
cmd/booti.c
On 24 August 2017 at 12:58, Andy Yan <andys...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Tom and other maintainers：
>
> 2017-07-13 2:25 GMT+08:00 Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com>:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:56:03PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
>>
>> > The second area of
On 8 August 2017 at 02:13, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 06:04:11PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
>
> > Follow bootz's pattern by moving the booti_setup to arch/arm/lib.
> > This allows to use that function in other path, e.g booting
> > a
it differently. say,
cmd/booti.c just do a manually, while in the bootm path, we can use
bootm_load_os(with some changes).
Signed-off-by: Bin Chen <bin.c...@linaro.org>
---
arch/arm/lib/Makefile | 2 +-
arch/arm/lib/image.c | 76 ++
cmd/booti.c
On 24 July 2017 at 00:41, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 11:48:53PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
> > On 19 July 2017 at 12:53, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:44:48PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
&
On 24 July 2017 at 00:41, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 11:48:53PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
> > On 19 July 2017 at 12:53, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:44:48PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
&
On 19 July 2017 at 12:53, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:44:48PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
> > On 18 July 2017 at 22:32, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 05:33:08PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
&g
Andy,
On 14 July 2017 at 17:30, Andy Yan <andys...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> 2017-07-13 15:33 GMT+08:00 Bin Chen <bin.c...@linaro.org>:
>
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> Thanks for the review.
>>
>> On 13 July 2017 at 04:25, Tom Rini <tr...@konsul
On 18 July 2017 at 22:32, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 05:33:08PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > Thanks for the review.
> >
> > On 13 July 2017 at 04:25, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
>
On 14 July 2017 at 00:55, Rob Herring <rob.herr...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:33 AM, Bin Chen <bin.c...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > Thanks for the review.
> >
> > On 13 July 2017 at 04:25, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com
On 14 July 2017 at 00:06, Daniel Thompson <daniel.thomp...@linaro.org>
wrote:
> On 13/07/17 08:33, Bin Chen wrote:
>
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> Thanks for the review.
>>
>> On 13 July 2017 at 04:25, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com > tr...@konsulko.com>&g
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the review.
On 13 July 2017 at 04:25, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:56:04PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
>
> > It's my understanding that we are supposed to use booti, instead of
> bootm,
> > for arm64 image. But b
the value specified in the android images.
Signed-off-by: Bin Chen <bin.c...@linaro.org>
---
cmd/booti.c | 80 -
1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/cmd/booti.c b/cmd/booti.c
index da6fb01..8fab96c 100644
---
as well if that proposal won't be accepted. But don't do
any harm as well.
[1] https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/c/417447/
Signed-off-by: Bin Chen <bin.c...@linaro.org>
---
common/image-android.c | 19 +++
include/image.h| 2 ++
2 files changed, 21 inse
22 matches
Mail list logo
