On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 05:45:32AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Marek, > > On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 at 14:57, Marek Vasut <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 11/13/25 9:36 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > >>> Which is different from disagreeing with your specific feedback about > > >>> how we get there, to be clear. > > > > > > And again, since your feedback to this patch was "Don't?", I'm saying we > > > need to. But the rest of your feedback was structural on moving towards > > > resolving it and so I assume Marek will respond. > > > > The "blast radius" are these patches, that's all that tripped the tests: > > > > - boot: android: Always use 8-byte aligned DT with libfdt > > - test/py: android: Point fdt command to aligned addresses > > - test/py: Use aligned address for overlays in 'extension' test > > - sandbox: Fix DT compiler address warnings in sandbox DTs > > - sandbox: Fix DT compiler pin warnings in sandbox DTs > > - boot: Assure FDT is always at 8-byte aligned address > > - arm: qemu: Eliminate fdt_high and initrd_high misuse > > - efi_loader: Assure fitImage from capsule is used from 8-byte aligned > > address > > - MIPS: Assure end of U-Boot is at 8-byte aligned offset > > > > Regarding last minute alignment, the problem with this android image > > seems to be in the android image itself, which packs in badly aligned > > FDT. We therefore have to copy it out and realign. > > My request is to implement these checks as part of the boot flow > (bootm, etc.) rather than adding memory allocations in leaf function. > We already support copying the FDT to a different address so we can > expand it and add things. Can we make use of that code?
There are likely some cases where we should do the check-and-move elsewhere, but others such as MIPS where we shouldn't get it wrong to start with. I believe we've had a few other patches that also fix the other cases where we don't ensure correct alignment to start with, and really must. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
