Hi Tom,
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 13:59, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 01:51:00PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 13:42, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 12:50:02PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 at 08:48, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 08:33:48AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
The cyclic subsystem is currently enabled either in all build phases or none. For tools this should not be enabled, but since lib/shc256.c and other files include watchdog.h in the host build, we must make sure that it is not enabled there.
This part is what I see as the Wrong Direction. There's some code we really need to share with our user space tools, in order to not copy/paste the same code. In turn, this code must be as user-space friendly as possible. Maybe even we re-factor things a little more, if needed, so that we _just_ have the library functions in common files, and u-boot or user space only files have the make use of logic. I don't feel bad about tools/ needing: void sha256_csum_wd(const unsigned char *input, unsigned int ilen, unsigned char *output, unsigned int chunk_sz) { sha256_context ctx; sha256_starts(&ctx); sha256_update(&ctx, input, ilen); sha256_finish(&ctx, output); }
(and so on for other algos) as a duplicate bit of code. Much less so than I do about adding <linux/kconfig.h> to a direct include list (since we should never be doing that) so that later on we can if (IS_ENABLED(..)) the existing code.
Bear in mind that we have the CONFIG_TOOLS_... options entirely to deal with the need for tools to enable features in common code. This SHA thing is a very small part of the code, compared to common code in boot/ for example.
So is this really a win?
I don't follow you here, sorry.
I mean that we share a lot of code already, code which contains CONFIG options. So does it matter avoiding adding one more?
It's adding <linux/kconfig.h> to files, we must not do that. And we don't need to if we don't have <watchdog.h> (and that in turn, cyclic.h) included outside of USE_HOSTCC :)
$ git grep kconfig.h .azure-pipelines.yml: :^include/linux/kconfig.h :^tools/ && exit 1 || exit 0 .gitlab-ci.yml: :^include/linux/kconfig.h :^tools/ && exit 1 || exit 0 Makefile: -include $(srctree)/include/linux/kconfig.h Makefile: -include linux/kconfig.h -include include/config.h \ arch/arm/include/asm/arch-fsl-layerscape/config.h:#include <linux/kconfig.h> arch/arm/mach-rockchip/tpl.c:#include <linux/kconfig.h> arch/arm/mach-sunxi/dram_sun50i_h6.c:#include <linux/kconfig.h> arch/arm/mach-sunxi/dram_sun50i_h616.c:#include <linux/kconfig.h> arch/arm/mach-sunxi/dram_sunxi_dw.c:#include <linux/kconfig.h> boot/image-fit.c:#include <linux/kconfig.h> boot/image.c:#include <linux/kconfig.h>
These are the sorts of ones which are a real pain to remove.
common/hash.c:#include <linux/kconfig.h> drivers/timer/dw-apb-timer.c:#include <linux/kconfig.h> env/embedded.c:#include <linux/kconfig.h> include/bootstage.h:#include <linux/kconfig.h> include/configs/at91-sama5_common.h:#include <linux/kconfig.h> include/configs/tqma6.h:#include <linux/kconfig.h> include/env_internal.h:#include <linux/kconfig.h> include/hash.h:#include <linux/kconfig.h> include/image.h:#include <linux/kconfig.h> include/u-boot/ecdsa.h:#include <linux/kconfig.h> lib/rsa/rsa-verify.c:#include <linux/kconfig.h> scripts/Makefile.autoconf: -include $(srctree)/include/linux/kconfig.h scripts/Makefile.autoconf: echo #include <linux/kconfig.h>; \ test/dm/scmi.c:#include <linux/kconfig.h> test/lib/kconfig.c: * Test of linux/kconfig.h macros test/lib/kconfig_spl.c: * Test of linux/kconfig.h macros for SPL tools/binman/test/blob_syms.c:#include <linux/kconfig.h> tools/binman/test/u_boot_binman_syms.c:#include <linux/kconfig.h> tools/binman/test/u_boot_binman_syms_size.c:#include <linux/kconfig.h> tools/env/fw_env_private.h:#include <linux/kconfig.h> tools/envcrc.c:#include <linux/kconfig.h> tools/mkeficapsule.c:#include <linux/kconfig.h> tools/printinitialenv.c:#include <linux/kconfig.h>
I don't really mind what we do with sha, and it seems I am a bit too rabid on the anti-#ifdef thing compared to others.
Regards, Simon