[U-Boot] [PATCH v2] Make FIT support really optional

Carlos Santos
2016-06-08T00:18:17Z

> From: "Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
> To: "Carlos Santos" <casantos@datacom.ind.br>
> Cc: "Tom Rini" <trini@konsulko.com>, 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