Hi, On Tue, 11 May 2021 at 19:10, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 07:50:38PM -0500, Alex G. wrote: > > On 5/11/21 5:34 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 02:57:03PM -0500, Alex G. wrote: > > > > On 5/6/21 9:24 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > In preparation for enabling CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() on the host build, add > > > > > some options to enable the various FIT options expected in these > > > > > tools. > > > > > This will ensure that the code builds correctly when CONFIG_HOST_xxx > > > > > is distinct from CONFIG_xxx. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > This makes me wonder whether we should just always enable host features. > > > > Right now, each defconfig can have a different mkimage config. So we > > > > should > > > > really have mkimage-imx8, mkimage-stm32mp, etc, which support different > > > > feature sets. This doesn't make much sense. > > > > > > > > The alternative is to get rid of all these configs and always enable > > > > mkimage > > > > features. The disadvantage is that we'd require openssl for building > > > > target > > > > code. > > > > > > > > A second alternative is to have a mkimage-nossl that gets built and used > > > > when openssl isn't available. It's really just openssl that causes such > > > > a > > > > schism. > > > > > > It would probably be best to have a single mkimage for everyone, with > > > everything on. But before then we really need to move from openssl to > > > gnutls or some other library that's compatible as it's been raised > > > before that linking with openssl like we do is a license violation I > > > believe. > > > > How about the former alternative for now? i.e. compile mkimage with or > > without openssl, and have that be the only host side switch. > > That would be a step in the right direction, yeah.
We have a NO_SDL build-time control. Perhaps have a NO_SSL one as well? Regards, Simon
