On 10/01/26 00:58, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 1/9/26 8:21 PM, Padhi, Beleswar wrote: >> Hi Tom, >> >> On 1/10/2026 12:40 AM, Tom Rini wrote: >>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2026 at 12:30:26AM +0530, Beleswar Padhi wrote: >>> >>>> The OMAP2 SPL linker script (also used for K3 platforms) currently uses >>>> 4-byte alignment after the __u_boot_list section. Change this to 8-byte >>>> alignment to meet the device tree specification requirement for DTB >>>> alignment. >>>> >>>> However, this alignment directive only advances the location counter >>>> without padding the actual binary output. When objcopy extracts >>>> u-boot-spl-nodtb.bin, it includes only actual data, stopping at the last >>>> byte of __u_boot_list (e.g., 0x41c359fc), not the aligned address (e.g., >>>> 0x41c35a00). When the FIT image containing device trees is concatenated >>>> to the above SPL binary, it gets appended at the unaligned file size, >>>> causing libfdt validation failure. >>>> >>>> To fix this, add an alignment directive inside the __u_boot_list section >>>> itself. This forces the linker to include padding as part of the section >>>> data, ensuring objcopy includes the padding bytes in the binary and the >>>> appended FIT image starts at an 8-byte aligned boundary. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Beleswar Padhi <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/u-boot-spl.lds | 3 ++- >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/u-boot-spl.lds b/arch/arm/mach- >>>> omap2/u-boot-spl.lds >>>> index 3bb759d8a1c..081323e6599 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/u-boot-spl.lds >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/u-boot-spl.lds >>>> @@ -35,9 +35,10 @@ SECTIONS >>>> . = ALIGN(4); >>>> __u_boot_list : { >>>> KEEP(*(SORT(__u_boot_list*))); >>>> + . = ALIGN(8); >>>> } >.sram >>>> - . = ALIGN(4); >>>> + . = ALIGN(8); >>>> __image_copy_end = .; >>>> _end = .; >>>> _image_binary_end = .; >>> Do we need both of these? Shouldn't we just need the one inside the sram >>> section with a comment that this ensures the end of the SRAM portion is >>> 8-byte aligned? >> >> >> Yes, we need only the first directive. > > Would that work if the __u_boot_list section is empty ? I think it won't and > you would end up with possible 4-byte alignment again.
It won't work. But having the second ALIGN(8) won't fix it either. Either we change the whole linker script to be 8-byte aligned, or we leave a comment on the last section saying it should be 8-byte aligned for DTB concatenation. I think the latter is a better approach. We don't necessarily need to enforce 8-byte alignment for every section of the binary. Thanks, Beleswar
