From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Anatolij Gustschin <agust@denx.de>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 09:29:59 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 3/5] x86: baytrail: secureboot: Add functions
 for verification of u-boot
In-Reply-To: <CAPnjgZ1WzO_m1OQno0dfeg3ERvOqDydsHBgYpx=-4ZJhStn8dw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1494515696-2087-1-git-send-email-agust@denx.de>
 <1494515696-2087-4-git-send-email-agust@denx.de>
 <CAPnjgZ1WzO_m1OQno0dfeg3ERvOqDydsHBgYpx=-4ZJhStn8dw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20170515092959.443a4af1@crub>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Hi Simon,

On Sun, 14 May 2017 21:03:34 -0600
Simon Glass sjg at chromium.org wrote:
...
> > Introduce functions that check the integrity of u-boot by utilising the
> > hashes stored in the oem-data block.  
> 
> U-Boot

yes, will fix it.

...
> > +/**
> > + * This function compares a hash which gets retrieved from the oem data block  
> 
> I think the function style we have settled on is:
> 
> /**
>  * verify_oem_sha256() - one line summary
>  *
>  * More explanation here
>  *
>  * @hashid: ...
>  * ...
>  */

OK, I'll rework and resubmit.

...
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * This function verifies the integrity for u-boot, its devicetree and the ucode
> > + * appended or inserted to the devicetree.
> > + *
> > + * @return true on success, false on error
> > + */  
> 
> Can you put this comment in the header file?

yes, will do.

...
> > +bool verify_u_boot_bin(void);
> > +bool verify_public_key(void);  
> 
> These nee comments. Also how about an fsp_ prefix since they are in
> the fsp file?

OK, I'll move comments from functions in .c file to this header and
use fsp_ prefix.

...
> > +       if (!verify_u_boot_bin()) {
> > +               /* if our u-boot binary checksum isn't equal to  
> 
> /*
>  * If our ...

OK, thanks!

--
Anatolij