[U-Boot] tools-only build broken

[Marek Vasut]

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 <marex at 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 <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> >> > On 2 September 2014 15:44, Otavio Salvador <otavio at ossystems.com.br> 
wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Simon Glass <sjg at 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.

Best regards,
Marek Vasut