02.12.2016 06:28, J Mo:



On 11/27/2016 02:29 AM, Mathias Kresin wrote:

I asked you three (!) times to _explain_ what this code should do
[0][1][2]. Now I see the very same code again without having ever seen
the requested explanation.

This still looks like the hackish image code that was required with
the old image build system. I guess most of the stuff can be done with
the existing build helpers.

To say it with easy understandable words: This patch will not be
merged till I get an understandable answer what this code should do. I
do not even consider doing a review before I get this answer.

Mathias

[0]
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/lede-dev/2016-September/002677.html
[1]
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/lede-dev/2016-September/002681.html
[2]
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/lede-dev/2016-September/002744.html

Wow.

First off I would like to apologize for whatever I've done that made you
feel such an indignant reply was needed.

I'm a weekend hobbyist coder and this is my first patch set send to
LEDE. This kind of stuff is not my day job. So, I would ask that you
assume whatever offense I've committed was not intentional. Not up to
now anyway.

Here is how I previously answered your question:

Cameo signatures are already used by a large number of devices. This
should do the same thing, but in the new makefile style. The old style
was nearly incomprehensible.

I'm not doing anything obscure here. This should be self-evident. Add
a byte-aligned signature. pad-to can't do that.


Can you please clarify what of my previous reply it is that you don't
understand so that I can do a better job of explaining it?

The problem is quite simple, I don't get how the signature created by Build/cameo-sig should look like. And the way the signature is created looks way to complex to me.

Mentioning that it's a cameo signature does not help at all, as long as you don't provide a link to some kind of specification how this signature format should look like.

I expect to see a human readable explantation of what the code should do. Hence I asked you back in the days:

> Do you want to add the signature to a 64 byte padded image or should
> the image + signature padded to a multiple of 64byte? Where does the
> 64 byte does come from? It doesn't seam to be related to the 128k
> blocksize of the flash

With the new image build code, we have a lot of helper for doing padding without the need of a single line of custom code. But as long as I don't understand how the resulting signature should look like/should be padded, I can not point you to the correct helper for the job.

You are aware that tools/firmware-utils has a mkcameofw? Not sure if it's the same format you need.

Mathias

_______________________________________________
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Reply via email to