Re: [PATCH 1/3] Merge mkubootimg tool for building U-Boot images

["Mike Frysinger" <vapier.adi@gmail.com>]

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).
-mike