Hi Simon,
-----Original Message----- From: sjg@google.com [mailto:sjg@google.com] On Behalf Of Simon Glass Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 2:44 AM To: Gupta Ruchika-R66431 Cc: U-Boot Mailing List; Sun York-R58495; Wolfgang Denk Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] [v3] hash: Add function to find hash_algo struct with progressive hash
+Wolfgang
Hi Ruchika,
On 29 December 2014 at 00:07, Ruchika Gupta ruchika.gupta@freescale.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
-----Original Message----- From: sjg@google.com [mailto:sjg@google.com] On Behalf Of Simon Glass Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 6:20 AM To: Gupta Ruchika-R66431 Cc: U-Boot Mailing List; Sun York-R58495 Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] [v3] hash: Add function to find hash_algo struct with progressive hash
Hi Ruchika,
On 23 December 2014 at 04:32, Ruchika Gupta ruchika.gupta@freescale.com wrote:
The hash_algo structure has some implementations in which progressive hash API's are not defined. These are basically the hardware based implementations of SHA. An API is added to find the algo which has progressive hash API's defined. This can then be integrated with RSA checksum library which uses Progressive Hash API's.
Signed-off-by: Ruchika Gupta ruchika.gupta@freescale.com CC: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
Changes in v3 : Corrected ifdef for SHA1
Changes in v2 : Added commit message
common/hash.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- include/hash.h | 15 +++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/common/hash.c b/common/hash.c index 12d6759..ea1ec60 100644 --- a/common/hash.c +++ b/common/hash.c @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ #include <asm/io.h> #include <asm/errno.h>
-#ifdef CONFIG_CMD_SHA1SUM +#ifdef CONFIG_SHA1
I'm still not sure about this. I suspect this will bloat the code for boards that use CONFIG_SHA1 (most) but not CONFIG_CMD_SHA1SUM. You could check that, but I went through some contortions to make sure that the hash API was not compiled in when not needed.
Since we will be using this API now in RSA checksum, defining CONFIG_SHA1
should allow the compilation of this structure. Asking user to enable CONFIG_CMD_SHA1SUM for using rsa-checksum doesn’t look right. Please suggest.
Agreed it doesn't, it was just a code size hack. Wolfgang might be able to chime in with thoughts here (+Cc).
But still, do you need to change it? After all, CONFIG_CMD_SHA1SUM should be a superest for CONFIG_SHA1.
With CONFIG_FIT_SIGNATURE, CONFIG_SHA1 and CONFIG_SHA256 get automatically defined in include/image.h. I need to use the structure hash_algos to find the functions to be used for algo SHA1. If I leave this as it is, it would mean that I will have to modify include/image.h to define CONFIG_CMD_SHA1SUM for FIT signatures. I am not sure whether that would be the right thing to do.
[snip]
Regards, Simon
Regards, Ruchika