Arthur Heymans has uploaded this change for review. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/56044 )
Change subject: [TESTONLY]do we use cbfs-relative base addresses as input?? ......................................................................
[TESTONLY]do we use cbfs-relative base addresses as input??
If no-one is using this, we might as well get rid of it?
Change-Id: I87349e98d6aeac5d3f79c8a067982cd136a0b863 Signed-off-by: Arthur Heymans arthur@aheymans.xyz --- M util/cbfstool/cbfstool.c 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
git pull ssh://review.coreboot.org:29418/coreboot refs/changes/44/56044/1
diff --git a/util/cbfstool/cbfstool.c b/util/cbfstool/cbfstool.c index 318104d..e42ddf8 100644 --- a/util/cbfstool/cbfstool.c +++ b/util/cbfstool/cbfstool.c @@ -799,6 +799,11 @@ size_t len_align = 0; uint32_t offset = param.baseaddress_assigned ? param.baseaddress : 0;
+ if (!IS_HOST_SPACE_ADDRESS(offset)) { + ERROR("TEST ERROR, do you use this?"); + return 1; + } + if (param.alignment && param.baseaddress_assigned) { ERROR("Cannot specify both alignment and base address\n"); return 1; @@ -1834,10 +1839,8 @@ " expand [-r fmap-region] " "Expand CBFS to span entire region\n" "OFFSETs:\n" - " Numbers accompanying the -b switch may be provided\n" - " in two possible formats: if their value is greater than\n" - " 0x80000000, they are interpreted as a top-aligned x86 memory\n" - " address; otherwise, they are treated as an offset into flash.\n" + " Numbers accompanying the -b switch are x86 memory mapped\n" + " flash addresses.\n" "ARCHes:\n", name, name ); print_supported_architectures();