+Wolfgang Hi Ruchika,
On 29 December 2014 at 00:07, Ruchika Gupta <ruchika.gu...@freescale.com> wrote: > Hi Simon, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: s...@google.com [mailto:s...@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.gu...@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.gu...@freescale.com> >> > CC: Simon Glass <s...@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. [snip] Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot