[PATCH v2 1/5] cyclic: Add a symbol for SPL

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 01:51:00PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 13:42, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 12:50:02PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 at 08:48, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 08:33:48AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The cyclic subsystem is currently enabled either in all build phases
> > > > > or none. For tools this should not be enabled, but since lib/shc256.c
> > > > > and other files include watchdog.h in the host build, we must make
> > > > > sure that it is not enabled there.
> > > >
> > > > This part is what I see as the Wrong Direction. There's some code we
> > > > really need to share with our user space tools, in order to not
> > > > copy/paste the same code. In turn, this code must be as user-space
> > > > friendly as possible. Maybe even we re-factor things a little more, if
> > > > needed, so that we _just_ have the library functions in common files,
> > > > and u-boot or user space only files have the make use of logic. I don't
> > > > feel bad about tools/ needing:
> > > > void sha256_csum_wd(const unsigned char *input, unsigned int ilen,
> > > >                 unsigned char *output, unsigned int chunk_sz)
> > > > {
> > > >         sha256_context ctx;
> > > >         sha256_starts(&ctx);
> > > >         sha256_update(&ctx, input, ilen);
> > > >         sha256_finish(&ctx, output);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > (and so on for other algos) as a duplicate bit of code. Much less so
> > > > than I do about adding <linux/kconfig.h> to a direct include list (since
> > > > we should never be doing that) so that later on we can if
> > > > (IS_ENABLED(..)) the existing code.
> > >
> > > Bear in mind that we have the CONFIG_TOOLS_... options entirely to
> > > deal with the need for tools to enable features in common code. This
> > > SHA thing is a very small part of the code, compared to common code in
> > > boot/ for example.
> > >
> > > So is this really a win?
> >
> > I don't follow you here, sorry.
> 
> I mean that we share a lot of code already, code which contains CONFIG
> options. So does it matter avoiding adding one more?

It's adding <linux/kconfig.h> to files, we must not do that. And we
don't need to if we don't have <watchdog.h> (and that in turn,
cyclic.h) included outside of USE_HOSTCC :)

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20231213/60dd2759/attachment.sig>