On Wednesday, September 03, 2014 at 03:44:35 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > On 2 September 2014 15:44, Otavio Salvador <ota...@ossystems.com.br> wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> ... > >> > >>>> We are using tools-only as part of the Debian packaging, what we are > >>>> trying to build is a usable generic version of mkimage (and > >>>> potentially other tools in the future) which can be placed in a > >>>> generic u-boot-tools package which is separate from the u-boot > >>>> package(s) which contain(s) u-boot binaries. > >>> > >>> mkimage has additional support for verified/secure boot, but only if > >>> enabled at build time. It is enabled for sandbox. So if you want full > >>> functionality you should use that build. > >> > >> However there are exceptions for it. For example MX28 has special > >> mxsimage support when it is in use. > > > > Yes, I see the '#ifdef CONFIG_MXS' at the top of tools/mksimage.c. > > That seem wrong to me - do you know the reason for it? > > This is to avoid linking with SSL library[1]. > > 1. > http://git.denx.de/u-boot.git/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=tools/Makefile;h=90e9 > 66d893e64e0508718127766d76286c4b8c6e;hb=HEAD#l115
No, you're wrong. It is not because of linking against SSL library, but to make sure this MXSimage support can be disabled easily. > However now we have FIT signature I think we can enable it and drop > the MXS special usage. This claim is wrong too, the signed fitImage support was in U-Boot before the MXSimage support. (I remember I looked at this fitImage signature when I was integrating the mxsimage into U-Boot ;-)) > Do you agree? I agree this -DCONFIG_MXS and the ifdef can be removed from Makefile and mxsimage.c respectively, but make sure the result won't break on various platforms. Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
