| Message ID | 96f941c67199250db9dc07bf78212f9e834b0237.1602489072.git.michal.simek@xilinx.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | Tom Rini |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add support for loading images above 4GB | expand |
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 01:51, Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com> wrote: > > The commit 9f45aeb93727 ("spl: fit: implement fdt_record_loadable") which > introduced fdt_record_loadable() state there spl_fit.c is not 64bit safe. > Based on my tests on Xilinx ZynqMP zcu102 platform there shouldn't be a > problem to record these addresses in 64bit format. > The patch adds support for systems which need to load images above 4GB. > > Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com> > --- > > (no changes since v1) > > common/fdt_support.c | 9 ++------- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> I am wondering whether we should use #size-cells etc. to select this?
On 15. 10. 20 17:05, Simon Glass wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 01:51, Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com> wrote: >> >> The commit 9f45aeb93727 ("spl: fit: implement fdt_record_loadable") which >> introduced fdt_record_loadable() state there spl_fit.c is not 64bit safe. >> Based on my tests on Xilinx ZynqMP zcu102 platform there shouldn't be a >> problem to record these addresses in 64bit format. >> The patch adds support for systems which need to load images above 4GB. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com> >> --- >> >> (no changes since v1) >> >> common/fdt_support.c | 9 ++------- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> > > I am wondering whether we should use #size-cells etc. to select this? > size-cells/address-cells are used for reg property. We are not using it and it is really just property with two cells which are pointing to address. That's why I don't think we need this property there. Thanks, Michal
diff --git a/common/fdt_support.c b/common/fdt_support.c index b8a8768a2147..5ae75df3c658 100644 --- a/common/fdt_support.c +++ b/common/fdt_support.c @@ -611,14 +611,9 @@ int fdt_record_loadable(void *blob, u32 index, const char *name, if (node < 0) return node; - /* - * We record these as 32bit entities, possibly truncating addresses. - * However, spl_fit.c is not 64bit safe either: i.e. we should not - * have an issue here. - */ - fdt_setprop_u32(blob, node, "load", load_addr); + fdt_setprop_u64(blob, node, "load", load_addr); if (entry_point != -1) - fdt_setprop_u32(blob, node, "entry", entry_point); + fdt_setprop_u64(blob, node, "entry", entry_point); fdt_setprop_u32(blob, node, "size", size); if (type) fdt_setprop_string(blob, node, "type", type);
The commit 9f45aeb93727 ("spl: fit: implement fdt_record_loadable") which introduced fdt_record_loadable() state there spl_fit.c is not 64bit safe. Based on my tests on Xilinx ZynqMP zcu102 platform there shouldn't be a problem to record these addresses in 64bit format. The patch adds support for systems which need to load images above 4GB. Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com> --- (no changes since v1) common/fdt_support.c | 9 ++------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)