[U-Boot] [PATCH] Kbuild: allow building tools without board configuration

[Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 03:39:18PM +0000, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 11:31 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 03:24:19PM +0000, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> > > Hi Tom,
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 11:16 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 05:33:51PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Prior to Kbuild, U-Boot could build under tools/ directory
> > > > > withour configuring for a specific board.
> > > > > 
> > > > > That feature was lost when switching to Kbuild.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This patch revives it again by adding a make target "tools-only".
> > > > > 
> > > > > Usage:
> > > > >   $ make tools-only
> > > > > 
> > > > > Neither board configuration nor cross compiler are required to
> > > > > build host tools.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
> > > > > Suggested-by: Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@synopsys.com>
> > > > > Cc: Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@synopsys.com>
> > > > > Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > > > Cc: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Problem is that we make enabling the signature code (which adds more
> > > > deps on the host) based on the config, and this was intentional.   So
> > > > I'm not sure if we want to do this exactly, at least right now.
> > > 
> > > Could you please add a bit more clarifications for your comment.
> > > 
> > > I don't quite understand why do I need to have any info from a board
> > > configuration when building "mkimage" utility.
> > > 
> > > Maybe I'm missing something.
> > > 
> > > And the problem is without proposed patch it's virtually impossible (or
> > > I don't know how) to build "mkimage" without configuring the real board.
> > > 
> > > For example what Linux distros will do to build generic "mkimage" tool?
> > 
> > So, if you check out tools/mkimage.c you can see that if
> > CONFIG_FIT_SIGNATURE is set we add options for doing rsa/etc signatures
> > on parts of a FIT image (see doc/uImage.FIT/signature.txt).  But then
> > you need to have crypto libraries on the host available for linking.
> > When not set we capture the relevant flags and print out a message to
> > stderr.  Since generic distros today hate FIT images even more than
> > legacy images, I'm not overly concerned about that, today.
> 
> So why don't we accept proposed patch so at least there will be a simple
> way to build generic "mkimage" people usually need?
> 
> If needed we may do more changes in the patch. For example we may add
> warning message saying that FIT images won't be supported by this
> "generic" "mkimage" etc.

Yeah, OK, we are no different than before at least (just checked, a
sandbox mkimage is still fine) so I can accept this, thanks!

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20140331/6c80ced0/attachment.pgp>