On 3/5/24 16:47, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 05:18:42PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
There is no reason to describe u-boot.itb on system without SPL. Pretty
much this is cover all systems which are using only boot.bin which contains
all images inside.
Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.si...@amd.com>
---
board/xilinx/common/board.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/board/xilinx/common/board.c b/board/xilinx/common/board.c
index 9641ed307b75..4f38b7d27684 100644
--- a/board/xilinx/common/board.c
+++ b/board/xilinx/common/board.c
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ struct efi_fw_image fw_images[] = {
.image_index = 1,
},
#endif
-#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID)
+#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) &&
defined(CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME)
What happens if this is defined with CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME="" ?
Your comment is valid but I am not aware about any CONFIG_IS, etc which checks
that string is not empty. If name is "" it will return yes and second image is
doing to be defined.
But I found handling in the code like this.
36 #ifdef CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE
37 if (strlen(CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE)) {
which can be used in my second patch not to describe second image in
set_dfu_alt_info() if string is empty.
Thanks,
Michal
