[U-Boot] tools-only build broken

[Marek Vasut]

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=90e9
> 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.

Best regards,
Marek Vasut