[PATCH v2 16/50] image: Add Kconfig options for FIT in the host build

Alex G. mr.nuke.me at gmail.com
Wed May 12 02:50:38 CEST 2021

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 <sjg at chromium.org>
>> Reviewed-by: Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke.me at 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.


More information about the U-Boot mailing list