Hi,
On 8 June 2016 at 05:17, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 07:47:12AM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 21:18:17 -0300 (BRT), Carlos Santos wrote:
>>
>> > There is already a configuration that makes FIT optional (CONFIG_FIT)
>> > but it is partially bro
On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 07:47:12AM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 21:18:17 -0300 (BRT), Carlos Santos wrote:
>
> > There is already a configuration that makes FIT optional (CONFIG_FIT)
> > but it is partially broken because it does not really remove
> > FIT-related
Hello,
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 21:18:17 -0300 (BRT), Carlos Santos wrote:
> There is already a configuration that makes FIT optional (CONFIG_FIT)
> but it is partially broken because it does not really remove
> FIT-related functionality from mkimage. That's the reason why it was
> not possible to disa
> From: "Thomas Petazzoni"
> To: "Carlos Santos"
> Cc: "Tom Rini" , u-boot@lists.denx.de
> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 5:37:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] Make FIT support really optional
> Carlos, Tom,
>
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 14:3
Carlos, Tom,
On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 14:39:22 -0300 (BRT), Carlos Santos wrote:
> > So, why? I don't like the idea of making FIT support in mkimage
> > conditional.
>
> If FIT is not to be conditional then what's the purpose of the
> CONFIG_FIT_SIGNATURE configuration option? Looks like it exists
> From: "Carlos Santos"
> To: "Tom Rini"
> Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de
> Sent: Saturday, June 4, 2016 2:39:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] Make FIT support really optional
>> From: "Tom Rini"
>> To: "Carlos Santos"
>
> From: "Tom Rini"
> To: "Carlos Santos"
> Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de
> Sent: Saturday, June 4, 2016 10:06:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] Make FIT support really optional
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:16:26PM -0300, Carlos Santos wrote:
>
>&
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:16:26PM -0300, Carlos Santos wrote:
> Due to some mistakes in the source code, it was not possible to really
> turn FIT support off. This commit fixes the problem by means of the
> following changes:
>
> - Enclose "bootm_host_load_image" and "bootm_host_load_images" bet
Hello Carlos,
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Carlos Santos wrote:
> Due to some mistakes in the source code, it was not possible to really
> turn FIT support off. This commit fixes the problem by means of the
> following changes:
>
> - Enclose "bootm_host_load_image" and "bootm_host_load_images"
Due to some mistakes in the source code, it was not possible to really
turn FIT support off. This commit fixes the problem by means of the
following changes:
- Enclose "bootm_host_load_image" and "bootm_host_load_images" between
checks for CONFIG_FIT_SIGNATURE, in common/bootm.c.
- Enclose the
10 matches
Mail list logo
