[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210412150529.GB23632@alpha.franken.de>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 17:05:29 +0200
From: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
To: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
Cc: Paul Burton <paulburton@...nel.org>, Tom Rini <trini@...sulko.com>,
Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: generic: Update node names to avoid unit addresses
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 12:21:28PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> With the latest mkimage from U-Boot 2021.04, the generic defconfigs no
> longer build, failing with:
>
> /usr/bin/mkimage: verify_header failed for FIT Image support with exit code 1
>
> This is expected after the linked U-Boot commits because '@' is
> forbidden in the node names due to the way that libfdt treats nodes with
> the same prefix but different unit addresses.
>
> Switch the '@' in the node name to '-'. Drop the unit addresses from the
> hash and kernel child nodes because there is only one node so they do
> not need to have a number to differentiate them.
>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Link: https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/commit/79af75f7776fc20b0d7eb6afe1e27c00fdb4b9b4
> Link: https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/commit/3f04db891a353f4b127ed57279279f851c6b4917
> Suggested-by: Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>
> Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
> ---
> arch/mips/generic/board-boston.its.S | 10 +++++-----
> arch/mips/generic/board-jaguar2.its.S | 16 ++++++++--------
> arch/mips/generic/board-luton.its.S | 8 ++++----
> arch/mips/generic/board-ni169445.its.S | 10 +++++-----
> arch/mips/generic/board-ocelot.its.S | 20 ++++++++++----------
> arch/mips/generic/board-serval.its.S | 8 ++++----
> arch/mips/generic/board-xilfpga.its.S | 10 +++++-----
> arch/mips/generic/vmlinux.its.S | 10 +++++-----
> 8 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
applied to mips-next.
Thomas.
--
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists