* [U-Boot] tools-only build broken
@ 2014-08-29 20:07 Ian Campbell
2014-08-30 0:04 ` Ian Campbell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Ian Campbell @ 2014-08-29 20:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
The tools-only target is currently broken:
$ make CROSS_COMPILE=arm-linux-gnueabihf- tools-only
CHK include/config/uboot.release
/bin/sh: 1: cannot open include/config/auto.conf: No such file
Makefile:1052: recipe for target 'include/config/uboot.release' failed
make: *** [include/config/uboot.release] Error 2
This is because tools-only depends on $(version_h), depends on
include/config/uboot.release, depends include/config/auto.conf. I think
this is all due to the support for LOCALVERSION(_AUTO).
I'm not sure how to reconcile this, since the version stuff
fundamentally needs the .config. Perhaps sandbox could be used?
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread* [U-Boot] tools-only build broken 2014-08-29 20:07 [U-Boot] tools-only build broken Ian Campbell @ 2014-08-30 0:04 ` Ian Campbell 2014-08-30 9:40 ` Matwey V. Kornilov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Ian Campbell @ 2014-08-30 0:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 21:07 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > The tools-only target is currently broken: > $ make CROSS_COMPILE=arm-linux-gnueabihf- tools-only > CHK include/config/uboot.release > /bin/sh: 1: cannot open include/config/auto.conf: No such file > Makefile:1052: recipe for target 'include/config/uboot.release' failed > make: *** [include/config/uboot.release] Error 2 > > This is because tools-only depends on $(version_h), depends on > include/config/uboot.release, depends include/config/auto.conf. I think > this is all due to the support for LOCALVERSION(_AUTO). > > I'm not sure how to reconcile this, since the version stuff > fundamentally needs the .config. Perhaps sandbox could be used? In the meantime "touch include/config/auto.conf" lets it build (hardly ideal though!) Ian. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] tools-only build broken 2014-08-30 0:04 ` Ian Campbell @ 2014-08-30 9:40 ` Matwey V. Kornilov 2014-08-31 2:44 ` Ian Campbell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Matwey V. Kornilov @ 2014-08-30 9:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot 30.08.2014 04:04, Ian Campbell ?????: > In the meantime "touch include/config/auto.conf" lets it build (hardly > ideal though!) Hi, I do make defconfig make silentoldconfig make tools-only ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] tools-only build broken 2014-08-30 9:40 ` Matwey V. Kornilov @ 2014-08-31 2:44 ` Ian Campbell 2014-09-01 4:54 ` Simon Glass 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Ian Campbell @ 2014-08-31 2:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot On Sat, 2014-08-30 at 13:40 +0400, Matwey V. Kornilov wrote: > 30.08.2014 04:04, Ian Campbell ?????: > > > In the meantime "touch include/config/auto.conf" lets it build (hardly > > ideal though!) > > Hi, I do > > make defconfig > make silentoldconfig > make tools-only Thanks. I feared that would be baking some sort of non-default defconfig (IYSWIM) stuff into the tools build. Perhaps that worry is unfounded though. Ian. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] tools-only build broken 2014-08-31 2:44 ` Ian Campbell @ 2014-09-01 4:54 ` Simon Glass 2014-09-02 9:22 ` Ian Campbell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Simon Glass @ 2014-09-01 4:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot Hi, On 30 August 2014 19:44, Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 2014-08-30 at 13:40 +0400, Matwey V. Kornilov wrote: >> 30.08.2014 04:04, Ian Campbell ?????: >> >> > In the meantime "touch include/config/auto.conf" lets it build (hardly >> > ideal though!) >> >> Hi, I do >> >> make defconfig >> make silentoldconfig >> make tools-only > > Thanks. I feared that would be baking some sort of non-default defconfig > (IYSWIM) stuff into the tools build. Perhaps that worry is unfounded > though. That works, and builds with sandbox_defconfig so that you get full functionality (verified boot). Regards, Simon ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] tools-only build broken 2014-09-01 4:54 ` Simon Glass @ 2014-09-02 9:22 ` Ian Campbell 2014-09-02 19:19 ` Simon Glass 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Ian Campbell @ 2014-09-02 9:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot On Sun, 2014-08-31 at 21:54 -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi, > > On 30 August 2014 19:44, Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk> wrote: > > On Sat, 2014-08-30 at 13:40 +0400, Matwey V. Kornilov wrote: > >> 30.08.2014 04:04, Ian Campbell ?????: > >> > >> > In the meantime "touch include/config/auto.conf" lets it build (hardly > >> > ideal though!) > >> > >> Hi, I do > >> > >> make defconfig > >> make silentoldconfig > >> make tools-only > > > > Thanks. I feared that would be baking some sort of non-default defconfig > > (IYSWIM) stuff into the tools build. Perhaps that worry is unfounded > > though. > > That works, You mean that "make defconfig" is (now) the recommended way to get tools-only to build? > and builds with sandbox_defconfig so that you get full > functionality (verified boot). Not sure what you mean here. Verified in what way? What is booting that way, this should only build tools, not something which can boot. We are using tools-only as part of the Debian packaging, what we are trying to build is a usable generic version of mkimage (and potentially other tools in the future) which can be placed in a generic u-boot-tools package which is separate from the u-boot package(s) which contain(s) u-boot binaries. Ian. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] tools-only build broken 2014-09-02 9:22 ` Ian Campbell @ 2014-09-02 19:19 ` Simon Glass 2014-09-02 21:44 ` Otavio Salvador 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Simon Glass @ 2014-09-02 19:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot Hi Ian, On 2 September 2014 03:22, Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 2014-08-31 at 21:54 -0700, Simon Glass wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 30 August 2014 19:44, Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk> wrote: >> > On Sat, 2014-08-30 at 13:40 +0400, Matwey V. Kornilov wrote: >> >> 30.08.2014 04:04, Ian Campbell ?????: >> >> >> >> > In the meantime "touch include/config/auto.conf" lets it build (hardly >> >> > ideal though!) >> >> >> >> Hi, I do >> >> >> >> make defconfig >> >> make silentoldconfig >> >> make tools-only >> > >> > Thanks. I feared that would be baking some sort of non-default defconfig >> > (IYSWIM) stuff into the tools build. Perhaps that worry is unfounded >> > though. >> >> That works, > > You mean that "make defconfig" is (now) the recommended way to get > tools-only to build? I mean that it builds sandbox, which is the best thing to build. > >> and builds with sandbox_defconfig so that you get full >> functionality (verified boot). > > Not sure what you mean here. Verified in what way? What is booting that > way, this should only build tools, not something which can boot. > > We are using tools-only as part of the Debian packaging, what we are > trying to build is a usable generic version of mkimage (and potentially > other tools in the future) which can be placed in a generic u-boot-tools > package which is separate from the u-boot package(s) which contain(s) > u-boot binaries. mkimage has additional support for verified/secure boot, but only if enabled at build time. It is enabled for sandbox. So if you want full functionality you should use that build. Regards, Simon ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] tools-only build broken 2014-09-02 19:19 ` Simon Glass @ 2014-09-02 21:44 ` Otavio Salvador 2014-09-02 23:14 ` Simon Glass 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Otavio Salvador @ 2014-09-02 21:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: ... >> We are using tools-only as part of the Debian packaging, what we are >> trying to build is a usable generic version of mkimage (and potentially >> other tools in the future) which can be placed in a generic u-boot-tools >> package which is separate from the u-boot package(s) which contain(s) >> u-boot binaries. > > mkimage has additional support for verified/secure boot, but only if > enabled at build time. It is enabled for sandbox. So if you want full > functionality you should use that build. However there are exceptions for it. For example MX28 has special mxsimage support when it is in use. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] tools-only build broken 2014-09-02 21:44 ` Otavio Salvador @ 2014-09-02 23:14 ` Simon Glass 2014-09-03 1:44 ` Otavio Salvador 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Simon Glass @ 2014-09-02 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot Hi Otavio, On 2 September 2014 15:44, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > ... >>> We are using tools-only as part of the Debian packaging, what we are >>> trying to build is a usable generic version of mkimage (and potentially >>> other tools in the future) which can be placed in a generic u-boot-tools >>> package which is separate from the u-boot package(s) which contain(s) >>> u-boot binaries. >> >> mkimage has additional support for verified/secure boot, but only if >> enabled at build time. It is enabled for sandbox. So if you want full >> functionality you should use that build. > > However there are exceptions for it. For example MX28 has special > mxsimage support when it is in use. Yes, I see the '#ifdef CONFIG_MXS' at the top of tools/mksimage.c. That seem wrong to me - do you know the reason for it? Regards, Simon ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] tools-only build broken 2014-09-02 23:14 ` Simon Glass @ 2014-09-03 1:44 ` Otavio Salvador 2014-09-03 1:46 ` Simon Glass 2014-09-03 9:25 ` Marek Vasut 0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Otavio Salvador @ 2014-09-03 1:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > On 2 September 2014 15:44, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: >> ... >>>> We are using tools-only as part of the Debian packaging, what we are >>>> trying to build is a usable generic version of mkimage (and potentially >>>> other tools in the future) which can be placed in a generic u-boot-tools >>>> package which is separate from the u-boot package(s) which contain(s) >>>> u-boot binaries. >>> >>> mkimage has additional support for verified/secure boot, but only if >>> enabled at build time. It is enabled for sandbox. So if you want full >>> functionality you should use that build. >> >> However there are exceptions for it. For example MX28 has special >> mxsimage support when it is in use. > > Yes, I see the '#ifdef CONFIG_MXS' at the top of tools/mksimage.c. > That seem wrong to me - do you know the reason for it? This is to avoid linking with SSL library[1]. 1. http://git.denx.de/u-boot.git/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=tools/Makefile;h=90e966d893e64e0508718127766d76286c4b8c6e;hb=HEAD#l115 However now we have FIT signature I think we can enable it and drop the MXS special usage. Do you agree? -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] tools-only build broken 2014-09-03 1:44 ` Otavio Salvador @ 2014-09-03 1:46 ` Simon Glass 2014-09-03 2:20 ` Otavio Salvador 2014-09-03 9:25 ` Marek Vasut 1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Simon Glass @ 2014-09-03 1:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot Hi Otvaio, On 2 September 2014 18:44, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: >> On 2 September 2014 15:44, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: >>> ... >>>>> We are using tools-only as part of the Debian packaging, what we are >>>>> trying to build is a usable generic version of mkimage (and potentially >>>>> other tools in the future) which can be placed in a generic u-boot-tools >>>>> package which is separate from the u-boot package(s) which contain(s) >>>>> u-boot binaries. >>>> >>>> mkimage has additional support for verified/secure boot, but only if >>>> enabled at build time. It is enabled for sandbox. So if you want full >>>> functionality you should use that build. >>> >>> However there are exceptions for it. For example MX28 has special >>> mxsimage support when it is in use. >> >> Yes, I see the '#ifdef CONFIG_MXS' at the top of tools/mksimage.c. >> That seem wrong to me - do you know the reason for it? > > This is to avoid linking with SSL library[1]. > > 1. http://git.denx.de/u-boot.git/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=tools/Makefile;h=90e966d893e64e0508718127766d76286c4b8c6e;hb=HEAD#l115 > > However now we have FIT signature I think we can enable it and drop > the MXS special usage. > > Do you agree? I agree (not sure about others). For sandbox we have SSL anyway so it should be fine. Regards, Simon ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] tools-only build broken 2014-09-03 1:46 ` Simon Glass @ 2014-09-03 2:20 ` Otavio Salvador 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Otavio Salvador @ 2014-09-03 2:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > On 2 September 2014 18:44, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: >>> On 2 September 2014 15:44, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: >>>> ... >>>>>> We are using tools-only as part of the Debian packaging, what we are >>>>>> trying to build is a usable generic version of mkimage (and potentially >>>>>> other tools in the future) which can be placed in a generic u-boot-tools >>>>>> package which is separate from the u-boot package(s) which contain(s) >>>>>> u-boot binaries. >>>>> >>>>> mkimage has additional support for verified/secure boot, but only if >>>>> enabled at build time. It is enabled for sandbox. So if you want full >>>>> functionality you should use that build. >>>> >>>> However there are exceptions for it. For example MX28 has special >>>> mxsimage support when it is in use. >>> >>> Yes, I see the '#ifdef CONFIG_MXS' at the top of tools/mksimage.c. >>> That seem wrong to me - do you know the reason for it? >> >> This is to avoid linking with SSL library[1]. >> >> 1. http://git.denx.de/u-boot.git/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=tools/Makefile;h=90e966d893e64e0508718127766d76286c4b8c6e;hb=HEAD#l115 >> >> However now we have FIT signature I think we can enable it and drop >> the MXS special usage. >> >> Do you agree? > > I agree (not sure about others). For sandbox we have SSL anyway so it > should be fine. I will wait Marek to comment here and if he agrees I prepare a patch for it. Marek? -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] tools-only build broken 2014-09-03 1:44 ` Otavio Salvador 2014-09-03 1:46 ` Simon Glass @ 2014-09-03 9:25 ` Marek Vasut 2014-10-16 18:24 ` Otavio Salvador 1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Marek Vasut @ 2014-09-03 9:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot On Wednesday, September 03, 2014 at 03:44:35 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > On 2 September 2014 15:44, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > >> ... > >> > >>>> We are using tools-only as part of the Debian packaging, what we are > >>>> trying to build is a usable generic version of mkimage (and > >>>> potentially other tools in the future) which can be placed in a > >>>> generic u-boot-tools package which is separate from the u-boot > >>>> package(s) which contain(s) u-boot binaries. > >>> > >>> mkimage has additional support for verified/secure boot, but only if > >>> enabled at build time. It is enabled for sandbox. So if you want full > >>> functionality you should use that build. > >> > >> However there are exceptions for it. For example MX28 has special > >> mxsimage support when it is in use. > > > > Yes, I see the '#ifdef CONFIG_MXS' at the top of tools/mksimage.c. > > That seem wrong to me - do you know the reason for it? > > This is to avoid linking with SSL library[1]. > > 1. > http://git.denx.de/u-boot.git/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=tools/Makefile;h=90e9 > 66d893e64e0508718127766d76286c4b8c6e;hb=HEAD#l115 No, you're wrong. It is not because of linking against SSL library, but to make sure this MXSimage support can be disabled easily. > However now we have FIT signature I think we can enable it and drop > the MXS special usage. This claim is wrong too, the signed fitImage support was in U-Boot before the MXSimage support. (I remember I looked at this fitImage signature when I was integrating the mxsimage into U-Boot ;-)) > Do you agree? I agree this -DCONFIG_MXS and the ifdef can be removed from Makefile and mxsimage.c respectively, but make sure the result won't break on various platforms. Best regards, Marek Vasut ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] tools-only build broken 2014-09-03 9:25 ` Marek Vasut @ 2014-10-16 18:24 ` Otavio Salvador 2014-10-16 22:17 ` Marek Vasut 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Otavio Salvador @ 2014-10-16 18:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot Hello, On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote: > On Wednesday, September 03, 2014 at 03:44:35 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: >> > On 2 September 2014 15:44, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: >> >> ... >> >> >> >>>> We are using tools-only as part of the Debian packaging, what we are >> >>>> trying to build is a usable generic version of mkimage (and >> >>>> potentially other tools in the future) which can be placed in a >> >>>> generic u-boot-tools package which is separate from the u-boot >> >>>> package(s) which contain(s) u-boot binaries. >> >>> >> >>> mkimage has additional support for verified/secure boot, but only if >> >>> enabled at build time. It is enabled for sandbox. So if you want full >> >>> functionality you should use that build. >> >> >> >> However there are exceptions for it. For example MX28 has special >> >> mxsimage support when it is in use. >> > >> > Yes, I see the '#ifdef CONFIG_MXS' at the top of tools/mksimage.c. >> > That seem wrong to me - do you know the reason for it? >> >> This is to avoid linking with SSL library[1]. >> >> 1. >> http://git.denx.de/u-boot.git/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=tools/Makefile;h=90e9 >> 66d893e64e0508718127766d76286c4b8c6e;hb=HEAD#l115 > > No, you're wrong. It is not because of linking against SSL library, but to make > sure this MXSimage support can be disabled easily. > >> However now we have FIT signature I think we can enable it and drop >> the MXS special usage. > > This claim is wrong too, the signed fitImage support was in U-Boot before the > MXSimage support. (I remember I looked at this fitImage signature when I was > integrating the mxsimage into U-Boot ;-)) > >> Do you agree? > > I agree this -DCONFIG_MXS and the ifdef can be removed from Makefile and > mxsimage.c respectively, but make sure the result won't break on various > platforms. I have looked at this and I am unsure I still think removing it is a good idea. I think the way to go is to change CONFIG_MXS to CONFIG_MXSIMAGE and enable this in sandbox defconfig. What you think? We would maintain the possibility to disable it if needed. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] tools-only build broken 2014-10-16 18:24 ` Otavio Salvador @ 2014-10-16 22:17 ` Marek Vasut 2014-10-17 15:35 ` Otavio Salvador 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Marek Vasut @ 2014-10-16 22:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot On Thursday, October 16, 2014 at 08:24:21 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 03, 2014 at 03:44:35 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > >> > On 2 September 2014 15:44, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > >> >> ... > >> >> > >> >>>> We are using tools-only as part of the Debian packaging, what we > >> >>>> are trying to build is a usable generic version of mkimage (and > >> >>>> potentially other tools in the future) which can be placed in a > >> >>>> generic u-boot-tools package which is separate from the u-boot > >> >>>> package(s) which contain(s) u-boot binaries. > >> >>> > >> >>> mkimage has additional support for verified/secure boot, but only if > >> >>> enabled at build time. It is enabled for sandbox. So if you want > >> >>> full functionality you should use that build. > >> >> > >> >> However there are exceptions for it. For example MX28 has special > >> >> mxsimage support when it is in use. > >> > > >> > Yes, I see the '#ifdef CONFIG_MXS' at the top of tools/mksimage.c. > >> > That seem wrong to me - do you know the reason for it? > >> > >> This is to avoid linking with SSL library[1]. > >> > >> 1. > >> http://git.denx.de/u-boot.git/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=tools/Makefile;h=90 > >> e9 66d893e64e0508718127766d76286c4b8c6e;hb=HEAD#l115 > > > > No, you're wrong. It is not because of linking against SSL library, but > > to make sure this MXSimage support can be disabled easily. > > > >> However now we have FIT signature I think we can enable it and drop > >> the MXS special usage. > > > > This claim is wrong too, the signed fitImage support was in U-Boot before > > the MXSimage support. (I remember I looked at this fitImage signature > > when I was integrating the mxsimage into U-Boot ;-)) > > > >> Do you agree? > > > > I agree this -DCONFIG_MXS and the ifdef can be removed from Makefile and > > mxsimage.c respectively, but make sure the result won't break on various > > platforms. > > I have looked at this and I am unsure I still think removing it is a > good idea. I think the way to go is to change CONFIG_MXS to > CONFIG_MXSIMAGE and enable this in sandbox defconfig. What you think? > We would maintain the possibility to disable it if needed. Nonsense, we should have as little amount of configurations as possible when it comes to mkimage. I would be all for enabling both signed fitImage and MXS image format by default and be done with it. Best regards, Marek Vasut ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] tools-only build broken 2014-10-16 22:17 ` Marek Vasut @ 2014-10-17 15:35 ` Otavio Salvador 2014-10-17 15:46 ` Marek Vasut 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Otavio Salvador @ 2014-10-17 15:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot Hello, On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote: > On Thursday, October 16, 2014 at 08:24:21 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote: >> > On Wednesday, September 03, 2014 at 03:44:35 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: >> >> > On 2 September 2014 15:44, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> > wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >>>> We are using tools-only as part of the Debian packaging, what we >> >> >>>> are trying to build is a usable generic version of mkimage (and >> >> >>>> potentially other tools in the future) which can be placed in a >> >> >>>> generic u-boot-tools package which is separate from the u-boot >> >> >>>> package(s) which contain(s) u-boot binaries. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> mkimage has additional support for verified/secure boot, but only if >> >> >>> enabled at build time. It is enabled for sandbox. So if you want >> >> >>> full functionality you should use that build. >> >> >> >> >> >> However there are exceptions for it. For example MX28 has special >> >> >> mxsimage support when it is in use. >> >> > >> >> > Yes, I see the '#ifdef CONFIG_MXS' at the top of tools/mksimage.c. >> >> > That seem wrong to me - do you know the reason for it? >> >> >> >> This is to avoid linking with SSL library[1]. >> >> >> >> 1. >> >> http://git.denx.de/u-boot.git/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=tools/Makefile;h=90 >> >> e9 66d893e64e0508718127766d76286c4b8c6e;hb=HEAD#l115 >> > >> > No, you're wrong. It is not because of linking against SSL library, but >> > to make sure this MXSimage support can be disabled easily. >> > >> >> However now we have FIT signature I think we can enable it and drop >> >> the MXS special usage. >> > >> > This claim is wrong too, the signed fitImage support was in U-Boot before >> > the MXSimage support. (I remember I looked at this fitImage signature >> > when I was integrating the mxsimage into U-Boot ;-)) >> > >> >> Do you agree? >> > >> > I agree this -DCONFIG_MXS and the ifdef can be removed from Makefile and >> > mxsimage.c respectively, but make sure the result won't break on various >> > platforms. >> >> I have looked at this and I am unsure I still think removing it is a >> good idea. I think the way to go is to change CONFIG_MXS to >> CONFIG_MXSIMAGE and enable this in sandbox defconfig. What you think? >> We would maintain the possibility to disable it if needed. > > Nonsense, we should have as little amount of configurations as possible when > it comes to mkimage. I would be all for enabling both signed fitImage and MXS > image format by default and be done with it. Ok, if we accept to have FIT enabled I am fine with it. I have the patch in my local tree for it and I will send it tomorrow. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] tools-only build broken 2014-10-17 15:35 ` Otavio Salvador @ 2014-10-17 15:46 ` Marek Vasut 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Marek Vasut @ 2014-10-17 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot On Friday, October 17, 2014 at 05:35:58 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > Hello, [...] > >> I have looked at this and I am unsure I still think removing it is a > >> good idea. I think the way to go is to change CONFIG_MXS to > >> CONFIG_MXSIMAGE and enable this in sandbox defconfig. What you think? > >> We would maintain the possibility to disable it if needed. > > > > Nonsense, we should have as little amount of configurations as possible > > when it comes to mkimage. I would be all for enabling both signed > > fitImage and MXS image format by default and be done with it. > > Ok, if we accept to have FIT enabled I am fine with it. I have the > patch in my local tree for it and I will send it tomorrow. I'd say give it a week or so until people return from ELCE proper. Best regards, Marek Vasut ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-10-17 15:46 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2014-08-29 20:07 [U-Boot] tools-only build broken Ian Campbell 2014-08-30 0:04 ` Ian Campbell 2014-08-30 9:40 ` Matwey V. Kornilov 2014-08-31 2:44 ` Ian Campbell 2014-09-01 4:54 ` Simon Glass 2014-09-02 9:22 ` Ian Campbell 2014-09-02 19:19 ` Simon Glass 2014-09-02 21:44 ` Otavio Salvador 2014-09-02 23:14 ` Simon Glass 2014-09-03 1:44 ` Otavio Salvador 2014-09-03 1:46 ` Simon Glass 2014-09-03 2:20 ` Otavio Salvador 2014-09-03 9:25 ` Marek Vasut 2014-10-16 18:24 ` Otavio Salvador 2014-10-16 22:17 ` Marek Vasut 2014-10-17 15:35 ` Otavio Salvador 2014-10-17 15:46 ` Marek Vasut
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox