On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 03:39:18PM +0000, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 11:31 -0400, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 03:24:19PM +0000, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 11:16 -0400, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 05:33:51PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > > > > > > Prior to Kbuild, U-Boot could build under tools/ directory > > > > > withour configuring for a specific board. > > > > > > > > > > That feature was lost when switching to Kbuild. > > > > > > > > > > This patch revives it again by adding a make target "tools-only". > > > > > > > > > > Usage: > > > > > $ make tools-only > > > > > > > > > > Neither board configuration nor cross compiler are required to > > > > > build host tools. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamad...@jp.panasonic.com> > > > > > Suggested-by: Alexey Brodkin <alexey.brod...@synopsys.com> > > > > > Cc: Alexey Brodkin <alexey.brod...@synopsys.com> > > > > > Cc: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > > Cc: Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> > > > > > > > > Problem is that we make enabling the signature code (which adds more > > > > deps on the host) based on the config, and this was intentional. So > > > > I'm not sure if we want to do this exactly, at least right now. > > > > > > Could you please add a bit more clarifications for your comment. > > > > > > I don't quite understand why do I need to have any info from a board > > > configuration when building "mkimage" utility. > > > > > > Maybe I'm missing something. > > > > > > And the problem is without proposed patch it's virtually impossible (or > > > I don't know how) to build "mkimage" without configuring the real board. > > > > > > For example what Linux distros will do to build generic "mkimage" tool? > > > > So, if you check out tools/mkimage.c you can see that if > > CONFIG_FIT_SIGNATURE is set we add options for doing rsa/etc signatures > > on parts of a FIT image (see doc/uImage.FIT/signature.txt). But then > > you need to have crypto libraries on the host available for linking. > > When not set we capture the relevant flags and print out a message to > > stderr. Since generic distros today hate FIT images even more than > > legacy images, I'm not overly concerned about that, today. > > So why don't we accept proposed patch so at least there will be a simple > way to build generic "mkimage" people usually need? > > If needed we may do more changes in the patch. For example we may add > warning message saying that FIT images won't be supported by this > "generic" "mkimage" etc.
Yeah, OK, we are no different than before at least (just checked, a sandbox mkimage is still fine) so I can accept this, thanks! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
