Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] binman: Convert FIT entry type to a subclass of Section entry type

[Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>]

Hi Jan,

On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 04:48, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> wrote:
>
> On 23.02.22 23:59, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Alper,
> >
> > On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 11:58, Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiyasak@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 21/02/2022 07:40, Simon Glass wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 at 08:53, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 at 10:34, Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiyasak@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> I can reproduce this and tried a few things, but more issues just kept
> >>>>> popping up (outside u-boot as well). I got it to a point where the
> >>>>> command re-packs the FIT and the image but quite wrongly. The offset and
> >>>>> image-pos properties get added in the FIT, and the image main-section
> >>>>> just concatenates all entries without regard to set offsets. I'll
> >>>>> need more time to work those out, then to add tests and send patches.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am going to try to merge my fit generator series today.
> >>>>
> >>>> One issue I notice is that the conversion to use entry_Section changes
> >>>> the contents of the self._fit_entries dict. Before it was keyed by
> >>>> relative path, but entry_section keys self._entries by node name.
> >>
> >> Yeah, this causes an error in image.FindEntryPath() while trying to
> >> replace e.g. "/fit@0x280000/images/u-boot" since there is no "images"
> >> entry in the FIT. Changing the key to the node name works, but then the
> >> "binman replace" invocation needs to use e.g. "/fit@0x280000/u-boot".
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> We may need to split it up. I will see if I can at least merge my
> >>>> series, which should not make things any worse, then see if I can come
> >>>> up with ideas.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for the diff.
> >>>
> >>> I did a bit more fiddling and pushed a tree to u-boot-dm/fit-working
> >>>
> >>> It refactors the fit implementation to separate scanning from emitting
> >>> the tree and I think this might help quite a bit. I'll send out the
> >>> series when I get a chance in the next few days or so.
> >>
> >> I've also managed to somewhat fix the rest of the issues I wrote, so now
> >> I can replace a FIT entry with a modified one (having a different u-boot
> >> file), or replace a subentry of the FIT with an arbitrary file.
> >>
> >> I couldn't look at your new version much but I'll try to see how good my
> >> fixes apply on top of it, will probably take me longer to patchify things.
> >
> > OK I'm going to send a new series with (most of) your suggested fixes
> > a new patches, then my refactoring. Just need to get things through
> > CI.
> >
>
> What's the status here? I've just rebased over master, a simple revert
> of this commit no longer works, and the regression is still present. Are
> there any pending patches that fixes this and I should pick locally in
> order to rebase/test my pending things?

Please see this series and review if you can:

https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/user/todo/uboot/?series=287681

I did not add a test for your issue though. Can you take a look?

Regards,
Simon