From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ruchika Gupta Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 09:04:08 +0000 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 8/9] [v3] hash: Add function to find hash_algo struct with progressive hash In-Reply-To: References: <1419334379-32294-1-git-send-email-ruchika.gupta@freescale.com> <1419334379-32294-9-git-send-email-ruchika.gupta@freescale.com> <1419836869455.44597@freescale.com> Message-ID: <1419930247614.73161@freescale.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de 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 > 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 > >> > >> 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 > >> > CC: Simon Glass > >> > --- > >> > 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 > >> > #include > >> > > >> > -#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