From: Carlos Santos <casantos@datacom.ind.br>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] Make FIT support really optional
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 14:39:22 -0300 (BRT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <345857401.1244821.1465061962032.JavaMail.zimbra@datacom.ind.br> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160604130658.GC11619@bill-the-cat>
> From: "Tom Rini" <trini@konsulko.com>
> To: "Carlos Santos" <casantos@datacom.ind.br>
> Cc: u-boot at lists.denx.de
> Sent: Saturday, June 4, 2016 10:06:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] Make FIT support really optional
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:16:26PM -0300, Carlos Santos wrote:
>
>> Due to some mistakes in the source code, it was not possible to really
>> turn FIT support off. This commit fixes the problem by means of the
>> following changes:
>>
>> - Enclose "bootm_host_load_image" and "bootm_host_load_images" between
>> checks for CONFIG_FIT_SIGNATURE, in common/bootm.c.
>>
>> - Enclose the declaration of "bootm_host_load_images" between checks for
>> CONFIG_FIT_SIGNATURE, in common/bootm.h.
>>
>> - Condition the compilation and linking of fit_common.o fit_image.o
>> image-host.o common/image-fit.o to CONFIG_FIT=y, in tools/Makefile.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Carlos Santos <casantos@datacom.ind.br>
>> ---
>> Changes v1 -> v2
>> Rebased to the top of master branch.
>>
>> common/bootm.c | 2 ++
>> include/bootm.h | 2 ++
>> tools/Makefile | 6 ++----
>> 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> 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.
> This makes the life of distribution people harder, not
> easier. The functions in common/bootm.c should be being discarded in
> U-Boot itself when we don't have CONFIG_FIT_SIGNATURE. Thanks!
The patch exists because of "distribution people". I sent a patch to Buildroot[1] which was refused because it added dependencies on DTC and evolved to several follow-ups [2,3,4].
1. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/618486/
2. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/619278/
3. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/619696/
4. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/629988/
Carlos Santos (Casantos)
DATACOM, P&D
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-04 17:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-08 15:06 [U-Boot] [PATCH 4/4] Make FIT support really optional Carlos Santos
2016-06-03 19:16 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] " Carlos Santos
2016-06-04 12:09 ` Otavio Salvador
2016-06-04 13:06 ` Tom Rini
2016-06-04 17:39 ` Carlos Santos [this message]
2016-06-06 11:42 ` Carlos Santos
2016-06-07 20:37 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2016-06-08 0:18 ` Carlos Santos
2016-06-08 5:47 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2016-06-08 12:17 ` Tom Rini
2016-06-10 1:09 ` Simon Glass
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=345857401.1244821.1465061962032.JavaMail.zimbra@datacom.ind.br \
--to=casantos@datacom.ind.br \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.