From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 10:29:09 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] spl: fdt: Record load/entry fit-images entries in
 64bit format
In-Reply-To: <CAPnjgZ2u1iXHsSptQZWV-7_KkoArRKKSbBnfvq6vJasNayyMug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cover.1599130989.git.michal.simek@xilinx.com>
 <e96b2f318bda5f2e6a20f6a984e671837c9ae216.1599130989.git.michal.simek@xilinx.com>
 <CAPnjgZ2u1iXHsSptQZWV-7_KkoArRKKSbBnfvq6vJasNayyMug@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <abbb1090-3750-46c2-0fa5-66f15d760b84@xilinx.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de



On 07. 09. 20 3:43, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Michal,
> 
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 05:03, 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.
> 
> But what about 32-bit systems who read this as a 32-bit number?
> Perhaps we should write 32-bit if !CONFIG_PHYS_64BIT?

The code for reading doesn't really care if value is 32bit or 64bit.
The fit_image_get_entry() and fit_image_get_load() read number of cells
used and based on that read 32 or 64 bit values.

Thanks,
Michal