| Message ID | 1434716311-26189-5-git-send-email-albert.aribaud@3adev.fr |
|---|---|
| State | Awaiting Upstream |
| Delegated to: | Stefano Babic |
| Headers | show |
On 19/06/2015 14:18, Albert ARIBAUD (3ADEV) wrote: > imximage header size is 4-byte, not 8-byte aligned. > This produces .imx images that a Vybrid cannot boot > on. > > Fix by adding a "padding" field in header. > > Signed-off-by: Albert ARIBAUD (3ADEV) <albert.aribaud@3adev.fr> > --- > > tools/imximage.h | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/tools/imximage.h b/tools/imximage.h > index 36fe095..a913329 100644 > --- a/tools/imximage.h > +++ b/tools/imximage.h > @@ -129,6 +129,7 @@ typedef struct { > ivt_header_t header; > write_dcd_command_t write_dcd_command; > dcd_addr_data_t addr_data[MAX_HW_CFG_SIZE_V2]; > + uint32_t padding[1]; /* end up on an 8-byte boundary */ > } dcd_v2_t; > > typedef struct { > Applied to u-boot-imx, thanks ! Best regards, Stefano Babic
Hi Stefano, On 2015-07-10 10:14, Stefano Babic wrote: > On 19/06/2015 14:18, Albert ARIBAUD (3ADEV) wrote: >> imximage header size is 4-byte, not 8-byte aligned. >> This produces .imx images that a Vybrid cannot boot >> on. >> >> Fix by adding a "padding" field in header. >> >> Signed-off-by: Albert ARIBAUD (3ADEV) <albert.aribaud@3adev.fr> >> --- >> >> tools/imximage.h | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/tools/imximage.h b/tools/imximage.h >> index 36fe095..a913329 100644 >> --- a/tools/imximage.h >> +++ b/tools/imximage.h >> @@ -129,6 +129,7 @@ typedef struct { >> ivt_header_t header; >> write_dcd_command_t write_dcd_command; >> dcd_addr_data_t addr_data[MAX_HW_CFG_SIZE_V2]; >> + uint32_t padding[1]; /* end up on an 8-byte boundary */ >> } dcd_v2_t; >> >> typedef struct { >> > > Applied to u-boot-imx, thanks ! Sorry, just stumbled over this message now. We discussed exactly this issue already more than a year ago, see: http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2014-April/177580.html Back then you asked whether I asked Freescale about it. Earlier this year I tried to get hold of that issue and asked Freescale on Community, see: https://community.freescale.com/thread/355161 However, no official confirmation or explanation so far. I think my patch back then solves the issue nicer. The struct dcd_v2_t is not the reason the whole header is not aligned by 8-byte, it is a problem of the boot_data_t header which is 12 bytes long. So inserting the padding just after struct boot_data_t (or inside of struct boot_data_t) seems to be more appropriate. -- Stefan
Hi Stefan, On 14/07/2015 12:29, Stefan Agner wrote: >> >> Applied to u-boot-imx, thanks ! > > Sorry, just stumbled over this message now. > > We discussed exactly this issue already more than a year ago, see: > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2014-April/177580.html I admit that I have forgotten it....thanks to revive it ! > > Back then you asked whether I asked Freescale about it. Earlier this > year I tried to get hold of that issue and asked Freescale on Community, > see: > https://community.freescale.com/thread/355161 > > However, no official confirmation or explanation so far. > > I think my patch back then solves the issue nicer. The struct dcd_v2_t > is not the reason the whole header is not aligned by 8-byte, it is a > problem of the boot_data_t header which is 12 bytes long. So inserting > the padding just after struct boot_data_t (or inside of struct > boot_data_t) seems to be more appropriate. I see. Albert, can you test on your board if Stefan's patch solves your issue, too ? I could then revert this one and apply Stefan's. It remains doubious how the ROMs on Freescale are interpretating the header, but we can only test it. Best regards, Stefano
Hello Stefan, On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 12:29:52 +0200, Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch> wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > On 2015-07-10 10:14, Stefano Babic wrote: > > On 19/06/2015 14:18, Albert ARIBAUD (3ADEV) wrote: > >> imximage header size is 4-byte, not 8-byte aligned. > >> This produces .imx images that a Vybrid cannot boot > >> on. > >> > >> Fix by adding a "padding" field in header. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Albert ARIBAUD (3ADEV) <albert.aribaud@3adev.fr> > >> --- > >> > >> tools/imximage.h | 1 + > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/tools/imximage.h b/tools/imximage.h > >> index 36fe095..a913329 100644 > >> --- a/tools/imximage.h > >> +++ b/tools/imximage.h > >> @@ -129,6 +129,7 @@ typedef struct { > >> ivt_header_t header; > >> write_dcd_command_t write_dcd_command; > >> dcd_addr_data_t addr_data[MAX_HW_CFG_SIZE_V2]; > >> + uint32_t padding[1]; /* end up on an 8-byte boundary */ > >> } dcd_v2_t; > >> > >> typedef struct { > >> > > > > Applied to u-boot-imx, thanks ! > > Sorry, just stumbled over this message now. > > We discussed exactly this issue already more than a year ago, see: > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2014-April/177580.html > > Back then you asked whether I asked Freescale about it. Earlier this > year I tried to get hold of that issue and asked Freescale on Community, > see: > https://community.freescale.com/thread/355161 > > However, no official confirmation or explanation so far. > > I think my patch back then solves the issue nicer. The struct dcd_v2_t > is not the reason the whole header is not aligned by 8-byte, it is a > problem of the boot_data_t header which is 12 bytes long. So inserting > the padding just after struct boot_data_t (or inside of struct > boot_data_t) seems to be more appropriate. After reading the U-Boot and Freescale discussions, IIUC you have come to the conclusion that the missing 4 bytes were in boot_data_t because it was the only structure in the header which was not 8-bytes-aligned. However, the available documentation does not specify this constraint, and from a more experimental vewpoint, my patch adds 4 bytes at the end of the overall header, thus leaving boot data at 12 bytes (therefore leaving the dcd_table not 8-byte-aligned) and yet Vybrid can boot. To me, this proves that the size alignment problem is not with boot_data_t but with the overall header. Aside: My own hypothesis on the reason for the non-written 8-byte-alignment requirement is that the ROM code initially loads the NAND sector containing the header at some fixed address then calls some function to copy the header just below the image destination address, and that function is 'optimized' to use 8-byte chunks (probably because it only had two free regs for ldm/stm) and thus assumes an 8 bytes header size, and nobody cared to document (or possibly even realized the existence of) that assumption. > -- > Stefan Amicalement,
Hello Stefano, On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:19:55 +0200, Stefano Babic <sbabic@denx.de> wrote: > > I think my patch back then solves the issue nicer. The struct dcd_v2_t > > is not the reason the whole header is not aligned by 8-byte, it is a > > problem of the boot_data_t header which is 12 bytes long. So inserting > > the padding just after struct boot_data_t (or inside of struct > > boot_data_t) seems to be more appropriate. > > I see. Albert, can you test on your board if Stefan's patch solves your > issue, too ? I could then revert this one and apply Stefan's. I can test it, but I'm sure that boot data does not need size alignment since in my case there is no such alignment and Vybrid boots. To me this means aligning boot_data_t size would introduce a constraint that is not really there. If Stefan would test my patch as well, I reckon he would find it to work as well as his. So we have two patches which fix Vybrid booting: - one which aligns the boot_data_t /size/ but keeps its /offset/ unaligned; - one which aligns the the boot_data_t /offset/ but keeps its /size/ unaligned. Seems to me that the conclusion is that the actual alignment of boot_data_t does not matter and that only the alignment of the whole imx_header_v2_t size (and, consequently, offset) matters. How about just adding an attribute((align(8))) to imx_header_v2_t? > It remains doubious how the ROMs on Freescale are interpretating the > header, but we can only test it. See my other answer. We could prove it by disassembling the ROM code. Any volunteer? :) > Best regards, > Stefano Amicalement,
Hi Albert, On 2015-07-15 09:54, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Hello Stefano, > > On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:19:55 +0200, Stefano Babic <sbabic@denx.de> > wrote: > >> > I think my patch back then solves the issue nicer. The struct dcd_v2_t >> > is not the reason the whole header is not aligned by 8-byte, it is a >> > problem of the boot_data_t header which is 12 bytes long. So inserting >> > the padding just after struct boot_data_t (or inside of struct >> > boot_data_t) seems to be more appropriate. >> >> I see. Albert, can you test on your board if Stefan's patch solves your >> issue, too ? I could then revert this one and apply Stefan's. > > I can test it, but I'm sure that boot data does not need size alignment > since in my case there is no such alignment and Vybrid boots. To me > this means aligning boot_data_t size would introduce a constraint that > is not really there. I quote here from both emails, since its about the same topic. > After reading the U-Boot and Freescale discussions, IIUC you have come > to the conclusion that the missing 4 bytes were in boot_data_t because > it was the only structure in the header which was not 8-bytes-aligned. > > However, the available documentation does not specify this constraint, > and from a more experimental vewpoint, my patch adds 4 bytes at the end > of the overall header, thus leaving boot data at 12 bytes (therefore > leaving the dcd_table not 8-byte-aligned) and yet Vybrid can boot. Yes, I agree on that. Also the boot data seems not to have the 8-byte alignment requirement (see the graphics I posted on the Freescale community article). > To me, this proves that the size alignment problem is not with > boot_data_t but with the overall header. I agree. Still, boot_data_t is the "offender", hence I would prefer that solution over your solution. > If Stefan would test my patch as well, I reckon he would find it to > work as well as his. > > So we have two patches which fix Vybrid booting: > > - one which aligns the boot_data_t /size/ but keeps its /offset/ > unaligned; > > - one which aligns the the boot_data_t /offset/ but keeps its /size/ > unaligned. I don't get this classification. The complete header struct shows that dcd_v2_t is _after_ boot_data_t. typedef struct { flash_header_v2_t fhdr; boot_data_t boot_data; dcd_v2_t dcd_table; } imx_header_v2_t; Your patch changes the size of dcd_v2_t, hence compensating the "unaligned" size of boot_data_t. As far as I see we have these two patches which fix Vybrid booting: - one which changes the boot_data_t /size/ which keeps the offset of dcd_v2_t and the image aligned. - one which changes the dcd_v2_t /size/ which compensates the unaligned size of boot_data_t and keeps the image aligned. > Seems to me that the conclusion is that the actual alignment of > boot_data_t does not matter and that only the alignment of the > whole imx_header_v2_t size (and, consequently, offset) matters. > > How about just adding an attribute((align(8))) to imx_header_v2_t? Hm this sounds tempting, but it does not seem to work here. I think because it only aligns the beginning of imx_header_v2_t in to 8-byte, however it does not align the size of the whole struct to 8 bytes, I guess? Hence the header size is still "unaligned". > >> It remains doubious how the ROMs on Freescale are interpretating the >> header, but we can only test it. > > See my other answer. We could prove it by disassembling the ROM code. > Any volunteer? :) Hehe, not me :-) -- Stefan
Hello Stefan (and sorry for the duplicate), On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:41:59 +0200, Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch> wrote: > Hi Albert, > > On 2015-07-15 09:54, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > > Hello Stefano, > > > > On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:19:55 +0200, Stefano Babic <sbabic@denx.de> > > wrote: > > > >> > I think my patch back then solves the issue nicer. The struct dcd_v2_t > >> > is not the reason the whole header is not aligned by 8-byte, it is a > >> > problem of the boot_data_t header which is 12 bytes long. So inserting > >> > the padding just after struct boot_data_t (or inside of struct > >> > boot_data_t) seems to be more appropriate. > >> > >> I see. Albert, can you test on your board if Stefan's patch solves your > >> issue, too ? I could then revert this one and apply Stefan's. > > > > I can test it, but I'm sure that boot data does not need size alignment > > since in my case there is no such alignment and Vybrid boots. To me > > this means aligning boot_data_t size would introduce a constraint that > > is not really there. > > I quote here from both emails, since its about the same topic. > > > After reading the U-Boot and Freescale discussions, IIUC you have come > > to the conclusion that the missing 4 bytes were in boot_data_t because > > it was the only structure in the header which was not 8-bytes-aligned. > > > > However, the available documentation does not specify this constraint, > > and from a more experimental vewpoint, my patch adds 4 bytes at the end > > of the overall header, thus leaving boot data at 12 bytes (therefore > > leaving the dcd_table not 8-byte-aligned) and yet Vybrid can boot. > > Yes, I agree on that. Also the boot data seems not to have the 8-byte > alignment requirement (see the graphics I posted on the Freescale > community article). > > > To me, this proves that the size alignment problem is not with > > boot_data_t but with the overall header. > > I agree. Still, boot_data_t is the "offender", hence I would prefer that > solution over your solution. > > > If Stefan would test my patch as well, I reckon he would find it to > > work as well as his. > > > > So we have two patches which fix Vybrid booting: > > > > - one which aligns the boot_data_t /size/ but keeps its /offset/ > > unaligned; > > > > - one which aligns the the boot_data_t /offset/ but keeps its /size/ > > unaligned. > > I don't get this classification. The complete header struct shows that > dcd_v2_t is _after_ boot_data_t. > > typedef struct { > flash_header_v2_t fhdr; > boot_data_t boot_data; > dcd_v2_t dcd_table; > } imx_header_v2_t; > > Your patch changes the size of dcd_v2_t, hence compensating the > "unaligned" size of boot_data_t. Compensating the unaligned size of the overall header for sure, since I'm adding a last field in the last structure. But precisely since I'm adding 4 bytes at the very end of the construct, we cannot tell whether I fixed the 'size' of the flash header, boot data or DCD. What we can tell, though, is that Vybrid will boot as long as we increase the size of the overall header to an 8-byte boundary, and also that it will boot regardless to whether these 4 bytes are added between boot data and DCD or after DCD. (note, btw, that in the Vybrid RM, the IVT itself, and the DCD, contain their own size explicitly in their tag-length-version headers, but the boot data does not contain its own size, nor is it contained elsewhere. What we call 'the size of the boot data' is 'the difference between the boot data and dcd addresses', but that's a definition for convenience.) > As far as I see we have these two patches which fix Vybrid booting: > > - one which changes the boot_data_t /size/ which keeps the offset > of dcd_v2_t and the image aligned. > > - one which changes the dcd_v2_t /size/ which compensates the unaligned > size of boot_data_t and keeps the image aligned. > > > Seems to me that the conclusion is that the actual alignment of > > boot_data_t does not matter and that only the alignment of the > > whole imx_header_v2_t size (and, consequently, offset) matters. > > > > How about just adding an attribute((align(8))) to imx_header_v2_t? > > Hm this sounds tempting, but it does not seem to work here. I think > because it only aligns the beginning of imx_header_v2_t in to 8-byte, > however it does not align the size of the whole struct to 8 bytes, I > guess? Hence the header size is still "unaligned". Correct -- my fault, this aligns the address, not size, and there is no attribute that will control size alignment. So we really need to add manual padding. And if we want to not introduce any artificial constaints, I suggest we define the padding as a separate field in the overall structure, i.e.: typedef struct { flash_header_v2_t fhdr; boot_data_t boot_data; dcd_v2_t dcd_table; uint32_t padding; /* make size an 8-byte multiple */ } imx_header_v2_t; I think this is the 'least inexact' solution: it does not enforce any address or size alignment constraint that is not defined in the RM, and it does show that the constraint is not on the boot data or DCD but on the header as a whole. Functionally, it is identical to what I did, so I'm pretty sure it works. :) > >> It remains doubious how the ROMs on Freescale are interpretating the > >> header, but we can only test it. > > > > See my other answer. We could prove it by disassembling the ROM code. > > Any volunteer? :) > > Hehe, not me :-) :) > -- > Stefan Amicalement,
On 2015-07-15 13:44, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Hello Stefan (and sorry for the duplicate), > > On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:41:59 +0200, Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch> > wrote: >> Hi Albert, >> >> On 2015-07-15 09:54, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: >> > Hello Stefano, >> > >> > On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:19:55 +0200, Stefano Babic <sbabic@denx.de> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> > I think my patch back then solves the issue nicer. The struct dcd_v2_t >> >> > is not the reason the whole header is not aligned by 8-byte, it is a >> >> > problem of the boot_data_t header which is 12 bytes long. So inserting >> >> > the padding just after struct boot_data_t (or inside of struct >> >> > boot_data_t) seems to be more appropriate. >> >> >> >> I see. Albert, can you test on your board if Stefan's patch solves your >> >> issue, too ? I could then revert this one and apply Stefan's. >> > >> > I can test it, but I'm sure that boot data does not need size alignment >> > since in my case there is no such alignment and Vybrid boots. To me >> > this means aligning boot_data_t size would introduce a constraint that >> > is not really there. >> >> I quote here from both emails, since its about the same topic. >> >> > After reading the U-Boot and Freescale discussions, IIUC you have come >> > to the conclusion that the missing 4 bytes were in boot_data_t because >> > it was the only structure in the header which was not 8-bytes-aligned. >> > >> > However, the available documentation does not specify this constraint, >> > and from a more experimental vewpoint, my patch adds 4 bytes at the end >> > of the overall header, thus leaving boot data at 12 bytes (therefore >> > leaving the dcd_table not 8-byte-aligned) and yet Vybrid can boot. >> >> Yes, I agree on that. Also the boot data seems not to have the 8-byte >> alignment requirement (see the graphics I posted on the Freescale >> community article). >> >> > To me, this proves that the size alignment problem is not with >> > boot_data_t but with the overall header. >> >> I agree. Still, boot_data_t is the "offender", hence I would prefer that >> solution over your solution. >> >> > If Stefan would test my patch as well, I reckon he would find it to >> > work as well as his. >> > >> > So we have two patches which fix Vybrid booting: >> > >> > - one which aligns the boot_data_t /size/ but keeps its /offset/ >> > unaligned; >> > >> > - one which aligns the the boot_data_t /offset/ but keeps its /size/ >> > unaligned. >> >> I don't get this classification. The complete header struct shows that >> dcd_v2_t is _after_ boot_data_t. >> >> typedef struct { >> flash_header_v2_t fhdr; >> boot_data_t boot_data; >> dcd_v2_t dcd_table; >> } imx_header_v2_t; >> >> Your patch changes the size of dcd_v2_t, hence compensating the >> "unaligned" size of boot_data_t. > > Compensating the unaligned size of the overall header for sure, since > I'm adding a last field in the last structure. But precisely since I'm > adding 4 bytes at the very end of the construct, we cannot tell whether > I fixed the 'size' of the flash header, boot data or DCD. > > What we can tell, though, is that Vybrid will boot as long as we > increase the size of the overall header to an 8-byte boundary, and also > that it will boot regardless to whether these 4 bytes are added between > boot data and DCD or after DCD. > > (note, btw, that in the Vybrid RM, the IVT itself, and the DCD, contain > their own size explicitly in their tag-length-version headers, but the > boot data does not contain its own size, nor is it contained elsewhere. > What we call 'the size of the boot data' is 'the difference between the > boot data and dcd addresses', but that's a definition for convenience.) Good point, agreed. >> As far as I see we have these two patches which fix Vybrid booting: >> >> - one which changes the boot_data_t /size/ which keeps the offset >> of dcd_v2_t and the image aligned. >> >> - one which changes the dcd_v2_t /size/ which compensates the unaligned >> size of boot_data_t and keeps the image aligned. >> >> > Seems to me that the conclusion is that the actual alignment of >> > boot_data_t does not matter and that only the alignment of the >> > whole imx_header_v2_t size (and, consequently, offset) matters. >> > >> > How about just adding an attribute((align(8))) to imx_header_v2_t? >> >> Hm this sounds tempting, but it does not seem to work here. I think >> because it only aligns the beginning of imx_header_v2_t in to 8-byte, >> however it does not align the size of the whole struct to 8 bytes, I >> guess? Hence the header size is still "unaligned". > > Correct -- my fault, this aligns the address, not size, and there is > no attribute that will control size alignment. Actually I just discovered that "aligned" also changes the size (make sure using the correct syntax "__attribute__((aligned(8)))"). However, imximage.c seems to do some calculations using sizeof(struct imx_header) and sizeof(imx_header_v2_t) which lead to this error message: ./tools/mkimage: header error Adding __attribute__((aligned(8))) to struct imx_header seems not to alleviate the problem... Any idea? > > So we really need to add manual padding. > > And if we want to not introduce any artificial constaints, I suggest we > define the padding as a separate field in the overall structure, i.e.: > > typedef struct { > flash_header_v2_t fhdr; > boot_data_t boot_data; > dcd_v2_t dcd_table; > uint32_t padding; /* make size an 8-byte multiple */ > } imx_header_v2_t; That change would also sound good to me. > > I think this is the 'least inexact' solution: it does not enforce any > address or size alignment constraint that is not defined in the RM, and > it does show that the constraint is not on the boot data or DCD but on > the header as a whole. > > Functionally, it is identical to what I did, so I'm pretty sure it > works. :) Agreed. -- Stefan
Hello Stefan, On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:36:16 +0200, Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch> wrote: > >> As far as I see we have these two patches which fix Vybrid booting: > >> > >> - one which changes the boot_data_t /size/ which keeps the offset > >> of dcd_v2_t and the image aligned. > >> > >> - one which changes the dcd_v2_t /size/ which compensates the unaligned > >> size of boot_data_t and keeps the image aligned. > >> > >> > Seems to me that the conclusion is that the actual alignment of > >> > boot_data_t does not matter and that only the alignment of the > >> > whole imx_header_v2_t size (and, consequently, offset) matters. > >> > > >> > How about just adding an attribute((align(8))) to imx_header_v2_t? > >> > >> Hm this sounds tempting, but it does not seem to work here. I think > >> because it only aligns the beginning of imx_header_v2_t in to 8-byte, > >> however it does not align the size of the whole struct to 8 bytes, I > >> guess? Hence the header size is still "unaligned". > > > > Correct -- my fault, this aligns the address, not size, and there is > > no attribute that will control size alignment. > > Actually I just discovered that "aligned" also changes the size (make > sure using the correct syntax "__attribute__((aligned(8)))"). Does it? Then I too was under the same misconception that it did not. > However, imximage.c seems to do some calculations using sizeof(struct > imx_header) and sizeof(imx_header_v2_t) which lead to this error > message: > ./tools/mkimage: header error > > Adding __attribute__((aligned(8))) to struct imx_header seems not to > alleviate the problem... Any idea? > > > So we really need to add manual padding. > > > > And if we want to not introduce any artificial constaints, I suggest we > > define the padding as a separate field in the overall structure, i.e.: > > > > typedef struct { > > flash_header_v2_t fhdr; > > boot_data_t boot_data; > > dcd_v2_t dcd_table; > > uint32_t padding; /* make size an 8-byte multiple */ > > } imx_header_v2_t; > > That change would also sound good to me. > > > > > I think this is the 'least inexact' solution: it does not enforce any > > address or size alignment constraint that is not defined in the RM, and > > it does show that the constraint is not on the boot data or DCD but on > > the header as a whole. > > > > Functionally, it is identical to what I did, so I'm pretty sure it > > works. :) > > Agreed. Ok, so let me look into the __attribute__((aligned(8))) issue. If that can be solved, I would give it my preference; if it cannot, then I will settle for manually padding the end of imx_header_v2_t. > -- > Stefan Amicalement,
diff --git a/tools/imximage.h b/tools/imximage.h index 36fe095..a913329 100644 --- a/tools/imximage.h +++ b/tools/imximage.h @@ -129,6 +129,7 @@ typedef struct { ivt_header_t header; write_dcd_command_t write_dcd_command; dcd_addr_data_t addr_data[MAX_HW_CFG_SIZE_V2]; + uint32_t padding[1]; /* end up on an 8-byte boundary */ } dcd_v2_t; typedef struct {
imximage header size is 4-byte, not 8-byte aligned. This produces .imx images that a Vybrid cannot boot on. Fix by adding a "padding" field in header. Signed-off-by: Albert ARIBAUD (3ADEV) <albert.aribaud@3adev.fr> --- tools/imximage.h | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)