On 09.04.20 10:44, Ye Li wrote:
> The FIT config node has reversed ATF and u-boot: ATF is set to
> firmware but u-boot is set to loadable.
> This script can work previously because spl fit driver wrongly
> appends fdt to all loadable images. With the issue fixed, the u-boot
> in loadable does not have fdt appended and fails to work.
> So correct script by moving u-boot to firmware and ATF to loadable.
I know this has been applied and the change itself is probably correct.
But when I apply this to my 2020.01-based tree, TFA/U-Boot isn't loaded
anymore.
Please note, that I have disabled CONFIG_SPL_FIT_IMAGE_TINY, so
9d15d1d1c24f ("Revert "common: spl_fit: Default to IH_OS_U_BOOT if
FIT_IMAGE_TINY enabled"") won't help.
I haven't tested with master so far, so I'm not sure if I miss some
other patch or if there is an actual issue.
I just wondered why I switched the order in the first place in
fa99af41e0da ("imx: mkimage_fit_atf: Fix FIT image for correct boot order").
It would also have been nice if I would have been cc-ed for this patch
as I was the one introducing the "wrong" order in fa99af41e0da.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ye Li <ye...@nxp.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-imx/mkimage_fit_atf.sh | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mkimage_fit_atf.sh
> b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mkimage_fit_atf.sh
> index ad81d5e..dd1ca5a 100755
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mkimage_fit_atf.sh
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mkimage_fit_atf.sh
> @@ -116,8 +116,8 @@ if [ -f $BL32 ]; then
> cat << __CONF_SECTION_EOF
> config@$cnt {
> description = "$(basename $dtname .dtb)";
> - firmware = "atf@1";
> - loadables = "uboot@1", "tee@1";
> + firmware = "uboot@1";
> + loadables = "atf@1", "tee@1";
> fdt = "fdt@$cnt";
> };
> __CONF_SECTION_EOF
> @@ -125,8 +125,8 @@ else
> cat << __CONF_SECTION1_EOF
> config@$cnt {
> description = "$(basename $dtname .dtb)";
> - firmware = "atf@1";
> - loadables = "uboot@1";
> + firmware = "uboot@1";
> + loadables = "atf@1";
> fdt = "fdt@$cnt";
> };
> __CONF_SECTION1_EOF
>
