Hi Loic,
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 14:47, Loic Poulain <loic.poul...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 05:05, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Loic,
> >
> > On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 at 15:12, Loic Poulain <loic.poul...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Simon,
> > >
> > > Le lun. 6 févr. 2023 à 18:12, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> a écrit :
> > >>
> > >> Hi Loic,
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 at 12:27, Loic Poulain <loic.poul...@linaro.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Mark sha256_process as weak to allow hardware specific implementation.
> > >> > Add parameter for supporting multiple blocks processing.
> > >> >
> > >> > Signed-off-by: Loic Poulain <loic.poul...@linaro.org>
> > >> > ---
> > >> > lib/sha256.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++-------
> > >> > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > >> >
> [...]
> > >> > +__weak void sha256_process(sha256_context *ctx, const unsigned char
> > >> > *data,
> > >> > + unsigned int blocks)
> > >> > +{
> > >> > + if (!blocks)
> > >> > + return;
> > >> > +
> > >> > + while (blocks--) {
> > >> > + sha256_process_one(ctx, data);
> > >> > + data += 64;
> > >> > + }
> > >> > +}
> > >> > +
> > >> > void sha256_update(sha256_context *ctx, const uint8_t *input,
> > >> > uint32_t length)
> > >> > {
> > >> > uint32_t left, fill;
> > >> > @@ -204,17 +218,15 @@ void sha256_update(sha256_context *ctx, const
> > >> > uint8_t *input, uint32_t length)
> > >> >
> > >> > if (left && length >= fill) {
> > >> > memcpy((void *) (ctx->buffer + left), (void *) input,
> > >> > fill);
> > >> > - sha256_process(ctx, ctx->buffer);
> > >> > + sha256_process(ctx, ctx->buffer, 1);
> > >> > length -= fill;
> > >> > input += fill;
> > >> > left = 0;
> > >> > }
> > >> >
> > >> > - while (length >= 64) {
> > >> > - sha256_process(ctx, input);
> > >> > - length -= 64;
> > >> > - input += 64;
> > >> > - }
> > >> > + sha256_process(ctx, input, length / 64);
> > >> > + input += length / 64 * 64;
> > >> > + length = length % 64;
> > >> >
> > >> > if (length)
> > >> > memcpy((void *) (ctx->buffer + left), (void *) input,
> > >> > length);
> > >> > --
> > >> > 2.7.4
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> I just came across this patch as it broke minnowmax.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ok, is it a build time or runtime break?
> >
> > Build, but you need the binary blobs to see it :-(
> > >>
> > >> This should be using driver model, not weak functions. Please can you
> > >> take a look?
>
> Just tested the minnowmax build (b69026c91f2e; minnowmax_defconfig;
> gcc-11.3.0), and I've not observed any issue (but I had to fake some
> of the binary blobs...). Could you share the build problem/error you
Unfortunately you need the blobs!
> encountered? As you mentioned it, Is the error specifically related to
> _weak function linking? Would like to have a simple and quick fix
> before trying to move on to a more proper DM based solution.
It is just because of the code size increase, I believe. I am planning
to dig into it a bit as Bin Meng asked for more info as to why I sent
a revert for his patch moving U-Boot.
Regards,
Simon
>
> Thanks,
> Loic
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes I can look at it in the next few days. I have used weak function
> > > because it’s an architecture feature offered by armv8 instructions, It’s
> > > not strictly speaking an internal device/IP.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Right, same as hardware-accelerated hashing hardware in my book.
> >
> > See hash.c which has become a mess. We have been trying to make do
> > with a list of algos, but given all the updates I think needs a new
> > UCLASS_HASH with the same operations as in hash.h
> >
> > Regards,
> > Simon
