Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Jan 2008 16:35:36 -0600 | From | Josh Boyer <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] Merge mkubootimg tool for building U-Boot images |
| |
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:33:20 -0500 "Mike Frysinger" <vapier.adi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2008 5:26 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:15:48 -0500 "Mike Frysinger" <vapier.adi@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 3, 2008 5:02 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > Several platforms require the mkimage tool to generate a uImage file that is > > > > used with U-Boot. This brings the mkimage tool in-kernel to enable building > > > > those platforms without having mkimage externally provided. The tool is named > > > > mkubootimg for better clarity. > > > > > > > > This is currently based off of the version found in U-Boot 1.3.1. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > > > > > --- > > > > scripts/Makefile | 1 > > > > scripts/mkubootimg/Makefile | 6 > > > > scripts/mkubootimg/crc32.c | 199 +++++++++++ > > > > scripts/mkubootimg/mkimage.c | 728 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > scripts/mkubootimg/sha1.c | 413 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > scripts/mkubootimg/sha1.h | 115 ++++++ > > > > scripts/mkubootimg/uimage.h | 161 +++++++++ > > > > 7 files changed, 1623 insertions(+) > > > > > > i'm fairly certain sha1 is not needed. the u-boot makefile has a bug > > > in the 1.3.1 release where mkimage depends on sha1.o but doesnt > > > actually use sha1 functions. i posted a patch to u-boot mailing list > > > to get this dropped. regardless, no need for the kernel to import it. > > > > No need to yet anyway. There are discussions on-going to make a new > > image format that can do sha1 sums instead of crc32. Either way is > > fine with me, I just opted to include it now to keep it the same as > > U-Boot and avoid having to include it in the future. > > > > If you want an updated patch with the sha1 code removed, I can do > > that. Sam, Wolfgang? > > yes, but i think the next image format is going to require quite a bit > of changes in the build system anyways, especially since with the > kernel you will want the option to produce either format, so simply > dropping the sha1 makes sense to me. but i dont really care either > way, just making sure you're aware of the issue (and it sounds like > you are).
Yep, I am. I plan on maintaining the in-kernel version too, as most of the PPC 44x boards these days use U-Boot. So I'll be sure to keep on top of things.
josh
| |