[U-Boot] [PATCH 8/9] [v3] hash: Add function to find hash_algo struct with progressive hash

[Ruchika Gupta <ruchika.gupta@freescale.com>]

Hi Simon,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sjg at google.com [mailto:sjg at google.com] On Behalf Of Simon Glass
> Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 2:44 AM
> To: Gupta Ruchika-R66431
> Cc: U-Boot Mailing List; Sun York-R58495; Wolfgang Denk
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] [v3] hash: Add function to find hash_algo struct
> with progressive hash
> 
> +Wolfgang
> 
> Hi Ruchika,
> 
> On 29 December 2014 at 00:07, Ruchika Gupta <ruchika.gupta@freescale.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: sjg at google.com [mailto:sjg at google.com] On Behalf Of Simon Glass
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 6:20 AM
> >> To: Gupta Ruchika-R66431
> >> Cc: U-Boot Mailing List; Sun York-R58495
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] [v3] hash: Add function to find hash_algo
> >> struct with progressive hash
> >>
> >> Hi Ruchika,
> >>
> >> On 23 December 2014 at 04:32, Ruchika Gupta
> >> <ruchika.gupta@freescale.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > The hash_algo structure has some implementations in which
> >> > progressive hash API's are not defined. These are basically the
> >> > hardware based implementations of SHA. An API is added to find the
> >> > algo which has progressive hash API's defined. This can then be
> >> > integrated with RSA checksum library which uses Progressive Hash API's.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Ruchika Gupta <ruchika.gupta@freescale.com>
> >> > CC: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> >> > ---
> >> > Changes in v3 :
> >> > Corrected ifdef for SHA1
> >> >
> >> > Changes in v2 :
> >> > Added commit message
> >> >
> >> >  common/hash.c  | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >> > include/hash.h
> >> > | 15 +++++++++++++++
> >> >  2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/common/hash.c b/common/hash.c index 12d6759..ea1ec60
> >> > 100644
> >> > --- a/common/hash.c
> >> > +++ b/common/hash.c
> >> > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
> >> >  #include <asm/io.h>
> >> >  #include <asm/errno.h>
> >> >
> >> > -#ifdef CONFIG_CMD_SHA1SUM
> >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SHA1
> >>
> >> I'm still not sure about this. I suspect this will bloat the code for
> >> boards that use CONFIG_SHA1 (most) but not CONFIG_CMD_SHA1SUM. You
> >> could check that, but I went through some contortions to make sure
> >> that the hash API was not compiled in when not needed.
> >
> > Since we will be using this API now in RSA checksum, defining CONFIG_SHA1
> should allow the compilation of this structure. Asking user to enable
> CONFIG_CMD_SHA1SUM for using rsa-checksum doesn?t look right. Please suggest.
> 
> Agreed it doesn't, it was just a code size hack. Wolfgang might be able to
> chime in with thoughts here (+Cc).
> 
> But still, do you need to change it? After all, CONFIG_CMD_SHA1SUM should be
> a superest for CONFIG_SHA1.
With CONFIG_FIT_SIGNATURE, CONFIG_SHA1 and CONFIG_SHA256 get automatically defined in include/image.h. I need to use the structure hash_algos to find the  functions to be used for algo SHA1. If I leave this as it is, it would mean that I will have to modify include/image.h to define CONFIG_CMD_SHA1SUM for FIT signatures. I am not sure whether that would be the right thing to do.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Regards,
> Simon

Regards,
Ruchika