> From: "Carlos Santos" <casan...@datacom.ind.br> > To: "Tom Rini" <tr...@konsulko.com> > 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" <tr...@konsulko.com> >> To: "Carlos Santos" <casan...@datacom.ind.br> >> 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: >> >>> 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 declaration of "bootm_host_load_images" between checks for >>> CONFIG_FIT_SIGNATURE, in common/bootm.h. >>> >>> - Condition the compilation and linking of fit_common.o fit_image.o >>> image-host.o common/image-fit.o to CONFIG_FIT=y, in tools/Makefile. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Carlos Santos <casan...@datacom.ind.br> >>> --- >>> Changes v1 -> v2 >>> Rebased to the top of master branch. >>> >>> common/bootm.c | 2 ++ >>> include/bootm.h | 2 ++ >>> tools/Makefile | 6 ++---- >>> 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> 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 exactly to > make > FIT support conditional, which seems to be a reasonable approach, since it > helps to reduce the size of the boot loader. Sorry, I meant "what is the purpose of the CONFIG_FIT option". >> This makes the life of distribution people harder, not >> easier. The functions in common/bootm.c should be being discarded in >> U-Boot itself when we don't have CONFIG_FIT_SIGNATURE. Thanks! > > The patch exists because of "distribution people". I sent a patch to > Buildroot[1] which was refused because it added dependencies on DTC and > evolved > to several follow-ups [2,3,4]. > > 1. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/618486/ > 2. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/619278/ > 3. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/619696/ > 4. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/629988/ > > Carlos Santos (Casantos) > DATACOM, P&D _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
