Hi Alper,
On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 at 15:32, Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/03/2022 08:02, Simon Glass wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 12:36, Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiya...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On 06/03/2022 06:19, Simon Glass wrote:
> >>> This boards uses SPL_FIT so does not need to support loading a raw image.
> >>
> >> This sounds OK to me, but...
> >>
> >>> Drop it to avoid binman trying to insert a symbol which has no value.
> >>
> >> I couldn't figure out how it leads to this in the code. I guess some
> >> ifdefs or optimization steps dropping the binman symbols from the ELF file?
> >
> > Well the raw-image method uses a symbol in SPL which holds the
> > image-pos of U-Boot. If we disable that, then the symbol is not used
> > and we don't have to set it. See spl_ram_load_image().
>
> Can you double-check this? Looks to me like the symbol isn't set both
> before/after this patch only because there's no image using u-boot-spl
> or u-boot-tpl entries. At u-boot-dm/fit-working, binman verbose output
> shows symbols being set as a later patch adds such entries.
Yes it is needed for the later patch. I have to put this patch before
that one to avoid a breakage.
>
> But, I did get u-boot-any symbols to disappear by disabling
> CONFIG_{SPL,TPL}_BINMAN_SYMBOLS, and u-boot-spl symbols by editing
> common/spl/spl.c to make that config's ifdef include those symbols.
Yes that would work.
Regards,
Simon
