Hello, On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > On Thursday, October 16, 2014 at 08:24:21 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: >> > 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=90 >> >> e9 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. >> >> I have looked at this and I am unsure I still think removing it is a >> good idea. I think the way to go is to change CONFIG_MXS to >> CONFIG_MXSIMAGE and enable this in sandbox defconfig. What you think? >> We would maintain the possibility to disable it if needed. > > Nonsense, we should have as little amount of configurations as possible when > it comes to mkimage. I would be all for enabling both signed fitImage and MXS > image format by default and be done with it.
Ok, if we accept to have FIT enabled I am fine with it. I have the patch in my local tree for it and I will send it tomorrow. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
