2018-04-17 3:06 GMT+08:00 Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>: > Hi Jun, > > On 13 April 2018 at 04:05, Jun Nie <jun....@linaro.org> wrote: >> 2018-04-13 1:24 GMT+08:00 Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 11 April 2018 at 09:13, Jun Nie <jun....@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> It may be unnecessary to check signature on unlocked board. >>>> Get the hint from platform specific code to support secure boot >>>> and non-secure boot with the same binary, so that boot is not >>>> blocked if board is not locked and has no key for signature >>>> verification. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jun Nie <jun....@linaro.org> >>>> --- >>> >>> Instead of a weak function can you please add a parameter to this >>> function (perhaps a flags word?) and a add test for this case to the >>> test? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Simon >> >> Sure, I can add a parameter to the function. But not sure what's the >> usage of it in your mind. Maybe "int flag" is enough for you? > > Yes a flag is fine if you define an enum in the header file for that > function. You will likely need to pass the flag around a few other > functions.
I am still unclear on what the usage of this flag. I mean what variable from fit_image_setup_verify() and fit_config_verify_required_sigs() to be feed to this function as a flag. Maybe a void pointer is better for different platform to pass context data and cost to specific data structure. For example, pass data of image that to be verified. fit_board_skip_sig_verification(const void *data) >> >> Do you mean add implementation of this function for a specific platform >> for "add test"? > > See test/py/tests/test_vboot.py which you should be able to modify for > your case. Will check this file for more modification and test. Thank you! > > Regards, > Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
