From: "Carlos Santos" casantos@datacom.ind.br To: "Tom Rini" trini@konsulko.com Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de Sent: Saturday, June 4, 2016 2:39:22 PM Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] Make FIT support really optional
From: "Tom Rini" trini@konsulko.com To: "Carlos Santos" casantos@datacom.ind.br Cc: u-boot@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.
Sorry, I meant "what is the purpose of the CONFIG_FIT option".
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].
- http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/618486/
- http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/619278/
- http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/619696/
- http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/629988/
Carlos Santos (Casantos) DATACOM, P&D