From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Glass Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 09:52:49 -0600 Subject: [PATCH v2 16/50] image: Add Kconfig options for FIT in the host build In-Reply-To: <20210512011006.GY17669@bill-the-cat> References: <20210506142438.1310977-1-sjg@chromium.org> <20210506082420.v2.16.I64826ed33219988294468df7b95dfa3fffd7a0a1@changeid> <659c76d0-d9aa-e270-0eb8-25cefdc238e9@gmail.com> <20210511223427.GW17669@bill-the-cat> <066428be-2db4-d143-6029-119bae223aeb@gmail.com> <20210512011006.GY17669@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi, On Tue, 11 May 2021 at 19:10, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 07:50:38PM -0500, Alex G. wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Alexandru Gagniuc > > > > > > > > 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. > > That would be a step in the right direction, yeah. We have a NO_SDL build-time control. Perhaps have a NO_SSL one as well? Regards, Simon