[PATCH 3/3] bootm: add initial FIT support

[Jan Lübbe]

On Di, 2016-01-05 at 14:50 +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> >> > +static int fit_open_configuration(struct fit_handle *handle, int
> num)
> >> > +{
> >> > +       struct device_node *conf_node = NULL, *sig_node;
> >> > +       char unit_name[10];
> >> > +       const char *unit, *desc;
> >> > +       int ret, level;
> >> > +
> >> > +       conf_node = of_get_child_by_name(handle->root,
> "configurations");
> >> > +       if (!conf_node)
> >> > +               return -ENOENT;
> >> > +
> >> > +       if (num) {
> >> > +               snprintf(unit_name, sizeof(unit_name), "conf@%d",
> num);
> > 
> > This is not working for my *.its file:
> >
> https://github.com/visionsystemsgmbh/onrisc_br_bsp/blob/master/board/vscom/baltos/kernel-fit.its
> > U-Boot is working with bootm ${loadaddr}#conf${board_name}
> > 
> > For Barebox I've changed this line to
> > 
> > snprintf(unit_name, sizeof(unit_name), "conf%d at 1", num)
> > 
> > This is how I start Linux: bootm /boot/kernel-fit.itb@
> $global.board.id
> > 
> > What is the standard for providing FIT configuration?
> 
> Don't know. Is there a spec in the u-boot sources, otherwise use the
> code.

I used the u-boot example ITS for reference (doc/uImage.FIT/multi.its).
The have the number after the @, so I used the same. Barebox's bootm
currently only supports a number to select between different "subimages"
as a legacy from uImages.

Your ITS has a @1 for every config/fdt. Why?

For selecting between different configurations depending on the board,
it would be nice to be able to reuse the DT board compatibles.

Regards,
Jan

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |