Hi Michal, On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 02:27, Michal Simek <michal.si...@xilinx.com> wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > On 07. 09. 20 3:43, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Michal, > > > > On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 05:03, Michal Simek <michal.si...@xilinx.com> wrote: > >> > >> SPL is creating fit-images DT node when loadables are recorded in selected > >> configuration. Entries which are created are using entry-point and > >> load-addr property names. But there shouldn't be a need to use non standard > >> properties because entry/load are standard FIT properties. But using > >> standard FIT properties enables option to use generic FIT functions to > >> descrease SPL size. Here is result for ZynqMP virt configuration: > >> xilinx_zynqmp_virt: spl/u-boot-spl:all -82 spl/u-boot-spl:rodata -22 > >> spl/u-boot-spl:text -60 > >> > >> The patch causes change in run time fit image record. > >> Before: > >> fit-images { > >> uboot { > >> os = "u-boot"; > >> type = "firmware"; > >> size = <0xfd520>; > >> entry-point = <0x8000000>; > >> load-addr = <0x8000000>; > >> }; > >> }; > >> > >> After: > >> fit-images { > >> uboot { > >> os = "u-boot"; > >> type = "firmware"; > >> size = <0xfd520>; > >> entry = <0x8000000>; > >> load = <0x8000000>; > >> }; > >> }; > >> > >> Replacing calling fdt_getprop_u32() by fit_image_get_entry/load() also > >> enables support for reading entry/load properties recorded in 64bit format. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.si...@xilinx.com> > >> --- > > > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > Isn't there a test that could be updated here? > > Are we testing SPL flow? > > > > >> > >> Would be good to know history of fit-images and it's property names but > >> there shouldn't be a need to use non standard names where we have > >> FIT_*_PROP recorded as macros in include/image.h. > > > > I agree. > > > >> Concern regarding backward compatibility is definitely valid but not sure > >> how many systems can be affected by this change. > > > > Me neither. Probably a good idea to fix it. > > Fix means keep existing code with warning and add new one next to it.
No, I mean use your code as here and document with a test, etc. If it breaks anything, it can be fixed. Regards, SImon