From: Carlos Santos <casantos@datacom.ind.br>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] Make FIT support really optional
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 14:39:22 -0300 (BRT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <345857401.1244821.1465061962032.JavaMail.zimbra@datacom.ind.br> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160604130658.GC11619@bill-the-cat>
> From: "Tom Rini" <trini@konsulko.com>
> To: "Carlos Santos" <casantos@datacom.ind.br>
> Cc: u-boot at lists.denx.de
> Sent: Saturday, June 4, 2016 10:06:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] Make FIT support really optional
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:16:26PM -0300, Carlos Santos wrote:
>
>> Due to some mistakes in the source code, it was not possible to really
>> turn FIT support off. This commit fixes the problem by means of the
>> following changes:
>>
>> - Enclose "bootm_host_load_image" and "bootm_host_load_images" between
>> checks for CONFIG_FIT_SIGNATURE, in common/bootm.c.
>>
>> - Enclose the declaration of "bootm_host_load_images" between checks for
>> CONFIG_FIT_SIGNATURE, in common/bootm.h.
>>
>> - Condition the compilation and linking of fit_common.o fit_image.o
>> image-host.o common/image-fit.o to CONFIG_FIT=y, in tools/Makefile.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Carlos Santos <casantos@datacom.ind.br>
>> ---
>> Changes v1 -> v2
>> Rebased to the top of master branch.
>>
>> common/bootm.c | 2 ++
>> include/bootm.h | 2 ++
>> tools/Makefile | 6 ++----
>> 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> 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.
> This makes the life of distribution people harder, not
> easier. The functions in common/bootm.c should be being discarded in
> U-Boot itself when we don't have CONFIG_FIT_SIGNATURE. Thanks!
The patch exists because of "distribution people". I sent a patch to Buildroot[1] which was refused because it added dependencies on DTC and evolved to several follow-ups [2,3,4].
1. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/618486/
2. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/619278/
3. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/619696/
4. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/629988/
Carlos Santos (Casantos)
DATACOM, P&D
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-04 17:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-08 15:06 [U-Boot] [PATCH 4/4] Make FIT support really optional Carlos Santos
2016-06-03 19:16 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] " Carlos Santos
2016-06-04 12:09 ` Otavio Salvador
2016-06-04 13:06 ` Tom Rini
2016-06-04 17:39 ` Carlos Santos [this message]
2016-06-06 11:42 ` Carlos Santos
2016-06-07 20:37 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2016-06-08 0:18 ` Carlos Santos
2016-06-08 5:47 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2016-06-08 12:17 ` Tom Rini
2016-06-10 1:09 ` Simon Glass
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=345857401.1244821.1465061962032.JavaMail.zimbra@datacom.ind.br \
--to=casantos@datacom.ind.br \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox