[U-Boot] [PATCH v4 12/12] mkimage: Add OMAP boot image support

Reinhard Meyer
2011-08-02T11:58:50Z

Dear Albert,
> Le 02/08/2011 11:08, Reinhard Meyer a ?crit :
> > Dear Albert,
> >> Dear Sandeep,
> >>
> >> please pull this directly with the rest of the OMAP SPL patches.
> >>
> >> In message<1311004011-9073-13-git-send-email-aneesh@ti.com> you wrote:
> >>> From: John Rigby<john.rigby@linaro.org>
> >>>
> >>> - Add mkimage support for OMAP boot image
> >>> - Add support for OMAP boot image(MLO) generation in the new
> >>> SPL framework
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: John Rigby<john.rigby@linaro.org>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh V<aneesh@ti.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> V3:
> >>> * Fixed minor issue with casting away 'const'ness of
> >>> pointers
> >>> * Ensure lists are sorted alphabetically
> >>> * Added an error message
> >>> * Removed 'packed' attribute from structs
> >>> * Fixed some other minor comments on V2
> >>> * Adapted for the new SPL framework
> >>> V4:
> >>> * Replaced CONFIG_SYS_SPL_TEXT_BASE with CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
> >>> ---
> >>> arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap4/config.mk | 30 +++++
> >>> common/image.c | 9 +-
> >>> include/image.h | 1 +
> >
> > For some reason the change to include/image.h has NOT made it into
> > u-boot-arm/master, therefore all builds are currently broken!
> >
> > common/image.c:141:4: error: ?IH_TYPE_OMAPIMAGE? undeclared here (not in
> > a function)
>
> My fault -- slipped a cam when rebasing. Please re-fetch master (and
> next and utf8 for anyone who wants them too).
>
> Two notes BTW:
>
> 1. due to the merge conflict between UBL and OMAP image additions, I
> have re-numbered TH_TYPE_OMAPIMAGE value from 11 to 12.
>
> 2. after UBL addition, the table_entry_t uimage_type table in
> common/image.c is no longer sorted by image name. I did not fix this as
> this could require changes beyond what the merge conflict resolution
> required.
>
> > Best Regards,
> > Reinhard
>
> Apologies for the merge issue.
>
> Amicalement,

I had locally fixed that define myself, but then got build warnings for
some undefined function in the same image-making business (can't recheck
that right now, a lengthy MAKEALL is in progress).

For the time being I rather stay based on u-boot/master until such
issues are fixed. Anyway a merge of my AT91 stuff with your ARM stuff
should not generate any merge conflicts, except maybe boards.cfg.

Best Regards,
Reinhard