On 08/01/2018 02:13 PM, Bin Meng wrote: > Hi, > > Currently it seems that we have two CRC32 implementation in U-Boot. > Two headers files are provided. > > 1. include/linux/crc32.h > The implementation is drivers/mtd/ubi/crc32.c. > Codes that use this implementation include: > > drivers/mtd/ubi/* > drivers/mtd/ubispl/* > fs/ubifs/* > > 2. include/u-boot/crc.h > The implementation is lib/crc32.c > Codes that use this implementation include: > > fs/btrfs/hash.c > tools/* > common/hash.c > common/image.c > common/image-fit.c > lib/efi_loader/efi_boottime.c > > It looks that include/linux/crc32.h was originally imported from Linux > kernel's include/linux/crc32.h, but the implementation in Linux > kernel's lib/crc32.c was not imported to U-Boot's lib/crc32.c but to > drivers/mtd/ubi/crc32.c. Why? > > Somehow U-Boot lib/crc32.c uses another different implementation from zlib. > > This is a mess. For example if I include both headers in one C file, > it won't compile. > > Can we clean this up?
Thanks for pointing this out. The drivers/mtd/ubi/crc32.c is based on an elder version of Linux. When looking at the function signatures I am not happy with include/u-boot/crc.h uint32_t crc32 (uint32_t, const unsigned char *, uint) The last parameter should be size_t. Otherwise the CRC may be wrong on 64bit systems. The two crc32 implementations do not have the same result on a low-endian system: crc32_le(0, 'U-Boot', 6) = a289ac17 crc32(0, 'U-Boot', 6) = 134b0db4. According to the comments in in include/linux/crc32.h the result of crc32_le is in bit reversed order. Conflicting definitions could be avoided by removing #define crc32() in include/linux/crc32.h and adjusting the ubi code accordingly. Best regards Heinrich _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
