From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carlos Santos Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 21:18:17 -0300 (BRT) Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] Make FIT support really optional In-Reply-To: <20160607223746.09c998f6@free-electrons.com> References: <1462719960-12229-1-git-send-email-casantos@datacom.ind.br> <1464981386-26342-1-git-send-email-casantos@datacom.ind.br> <20160604130658.GC11619@bill-the-cat> <345857401.1244821.1465061962032.JavaMail.zimbra@datacom.ind.br> <20160607223746.09c998f6@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <2013260423.2016960.1465345097365.JavaMail.zimbra@datacom.ind.br> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de > From: "Thomas Petazzoni" > To: "Carlos Santos" > Cc: "Tom Rini" , u-boot at lists.denx.de > Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 5:37:46 PM > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] Make FIT support really optional > Carlos, Tom, > > On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 14:39:22 -0300 (BRT), Carlos Santos wrote: > >> > So, why? I don't like the idea of making FIT support in mkimage >> > conditional. >> >> If FIT is not to be conditional then what's the purpose of the >> CONFIG_FIT_SIGNATURE configuration option? Looks like it exists >> exactly to make FIT support conditional, which seems to be a >> reasonable approach, since it helps to reduce the size of the boot >> loader. > > CONFIG_FIT_SIGNATURE is I guess optional because it requires OpenSSL at > *build* time and the U-Boot developers don't want to force everyone to > have OpenSSL available to build U-Boot. > > However, FIT support does not require any special build dependency, so > probably there's little interest from the U-Boot folks to make it > optional. There is already a configuration that makes FIT optional (CONFIG_FIT) but it is partially broken because it does not really remove FIT-related functionality from mkimage. That's the reason why it was not possible to disable FIT in the Buildroot package. My patch aims to fix that defect. Carlos Santos (Casantos) DATACOM, P&D