[U-Boot] tools-only build broken

[Otavio Salvador]

Hello,

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
> 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.

Ok, if we accept to have FIT enabled I am fine with it. I have the
patch in my local tree for it and I will send it tomorrow.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750