On 05.03.24 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="" ?
CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME depends on SPL_FS_EXT4 || SPL_FS_FAT ||
SPL_FS_SQUASHFS || SPL_SEMIHOSTING. So it is only defined if SPL could
load a file.
CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME defaults to a non-blank name. If a user
provides an invalid name, SPL will not be able to load the file.
What is wrong here is to assume that *.itb has to be load as a file. We
can configure U-Boot SPL to load the itb from a raw partition.
The check might be too restrictive.
Best regards
Heinrich
Cheers
/Ilias
{
.image_type_id = XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID,
.fw_name = u"XILINX-UBOOT",
--
2.36.1
