Hi Marek,
On Fri Jan 23, 2026 at 3:57 PM IST, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 1/23/26 4:32 AM, Beleswar Prasad Padhi wrote:
>>
>> On 23/01/26 00:33, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> On 1/22/26 6:45 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 10:52:47PM +0530, Beleswar Padhi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When CONFIG_SPL_MULTI_DTB_FIT is enabled, multiple device trees are
>>>>> packed inside the multidtb.fit FIT image. While the individual DTBs
>>>>> and the FIT image start address are 8-byte aligned, the DTBs embedded
>>>>> within the FIT image are not guaranteed to maintain 8-byte alignment.
>>>>>
>>>>> This misalignment causes -FDT_ERR_ALIGNMENT failure in
>>>>> setup_multi_dtb_fit() when locating the next available DTB within the
>>>>> FIT blob and setting gd->fdt_blob, because of the recent libfdt
>>>>> hardening since commit 0535e46d55d7 ("scripts/dtc: Update to upstream
>>>>> version v1.7.2-35-g52f07dcca47c")
>>>>>
>>>>> The mkimage tool already supports enforcing this alignment via the -B
>>>>> option, but users would have to specify it explicitly. This change
>>>>> makes 8-byte alignment the default when using -b.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reported-by: Anshul Dalal <[email protected]>
>>>>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/[email protected]
>>>>> Fixes: 0535e46d55d7 ("scripts/dtc: Update to upstream version
>>>>> v1.7.2-35-g52f07dcca47c")
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Beleswar Padhi <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> Tested-by: Tom Rini <[email protected]>
>>> Doesn't this enable 8-byte alignment for everything in case a DT is
>>> specified on mkimage command line ? That doesn't seem right ?
>>>
>>> If I do mkimage -f auto -b ...dtb ... , then I only want the DTB to be
>>> 8-byte aligned, all the other blobs can be 4 byte aligned just fine .
>>
>>
>> All the mkimage flags are parsed at once and populated in the params
>> data structure in one shot in the code. There is no separation of code
>> specifically for generating a FIT for a DTB vs for anything else.
>
> That does not seem to be true ?
>
> $ git grep -p '\<bl_len\>' tools/
> tools/fit_image.c=static int fit_extract_data(struct image_tool_params
> *params, const char *fname)
> tools/fit_image.c: align_size = params->bl_len ? params->bl_len : 4;
> ...
>
> So something like that may work ?
>
> "
> diff --git a/tools/fit_image.c b/tools/fit_image.c
> index 0306333141e..0c606ba4cc3 100644
> --- a/tools/fit_image.c
> +++ b/tools/fit_image.c
> @@ -642,9 +642,15 @@ static int fit_extract_data(struct
> image_tool_params *params, const char *fname)
> for (node = fdt_first_subnode(fdt, images);
> node >= 0;
> node = fdt_next_subnode(fdt, node)) {
> - const char *data;
> + const char *data, *type;
> int len;
>
> + if (align_size < 8) {
> + type = fdt_getprop(fdt, node, FIT_TYPE_PROP, &len);
> + if (type && !strcmp(type, "flat_dt"))
> + align_size = 8;
> + }
> +
> data = fdt_getprop(fdt, node, FIT_DATA_PROP, &len);
> if (!data)
> continue;
> "
>
I just ran a quick test with this diff and it seems to fix the issue for
us. If it's okay can we take the change as is.
Regards,
Anshul
>> We
>> would get the same result when using mkimage -f auto -b ...dtb... -B 0x8
>> I think we should be fine with this limitation for the usecases when
>> generating fitImage with mixed images. Unless you have some idea?
> What about the above ?
