[PATCH v5 02/29] kconfig: Add tools support to CONFIG_IS_ENABLED()

[Alex G.]

On 10/7/21 1:50 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 at 12:30, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 12:02:24PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> Hi Tom,
>>>
>>> On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 at 07:42, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 07:32:04AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 6 Oct 2021 at 20:52, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 08:49:13PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Oct 2021 at 18:26, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 07:43:15PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At present we must separately test for the host build for many options,
>>>>>>>>> since we force them to be enabled. For example, CONFIG_FIT is always
>>>>>>>>> enabled in the host tools, even if CONFIG_FIT is not enabled by the
>>>>>>>>> board itself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would be more convenient if we could use, for example,
>>>>>>>>> CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(FIT) and get CONFIG_HOST_FIT, when building for the
>>>>>>>>> host. Add support for this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With this and the tools_build() function, we should be able to remove all
>>>>>>>>> the #ifdefs currently needed in code that is build by tools and targets.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This will be even nicer when we move to using CONFIG(xxx) everywhere,
>>>>>>>>> since all the #ifdef and IS_ENABLED/CONFIG_IS_ENABLED stuff will go away.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>>>>>>>> Suggested-by: Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes at prevas.dk> # b4f73886
>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke.me at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem here is we don't include <linux/kconfig.h> automatically
>>>>>>>> when building host stuff, I believe.  This is why doing this breaks
>>>>>>>> test_mkimage_hashes for me on am335x_evm with:
>>>>>>>> /tmp/.bm-work/am335x_evm/tools/mkimage -D -I dts -O dtb -i /tmp/.bm-work/am335x_evm -f /home/trini/work/u-boot/u-boot/test/py/tests/vboot//hash-images.its /tmp/.bm-work/am335x_evm/test.fit
>>>>>>>> *** stack smashing detected ***: <unknown> terminated
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh dear, and no CI coverage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was reluctant to include kconfig.h everywhere but perhaps that is
>>>>>>> the best approach. Will take a look ASAP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe we need to think a bit harder too about how we structure
>>>>>> intentionally shared code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not, for example, for these common algorithms, rely on typical
>>>>>> system headers/libraries in the tooling, which means we validated U-Boot
>>>>>> vs common reference, rather than just our implementations?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean we use openssl for sha1, for example?
>>>>
>>>> I guess, yes.  Just flat out saying we require openssl for tools, and
>>>> doing our best to not make compatibility with libressl difficult, seems
>>>> likely to cause less headaches for people than what we already require
>>>> in terms of Python.
>>>
>>> I'm OK with that, although I do think the problem identified here
>>> (CONFIG_SHA256 not enabled) is somewhat sideways from that. We already
>>
>> OK, I've taken what you posted on IRC and folded that in, continuing
>> tests now.
>>
>>> use separate code paths to run hashing. Perhaps we could make it
>>> optional?
>>>
>>> What about those people that complain about crypto libraries on their systems?
>>
>> I'm not sure how big a problem that really is, currently.  I guess one
>> thing would be to make a separate thread on it, and put it in the next
>> -rc email as well, for people to explain why it would be a hardship.
>> That in turn, I think, is coming down to modern vs very old openssl
>> support, rather than having any at all.
> 
> OK I'll take a look at some point.
> 
> Or perhaps Alex might like to?

We just got a complain about OpenSSL yesterday [1]

Alex

[1] https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2021-October/462728.html