On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 7:30 PM Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2026 at 10:13:48PM -0600, James Hilliard wrote: > > The hash uclass is currently keyed only by CONFIG_DM_HASH, so SPL cannot > > enable UCLASS_HASH independently. Any SPL code using hash_digest*() has to > > rely on U-Boot proper also enabling DM_HASH, and the FIT hash path selects > > the driver-model implementation with a non-phase-aware preprocessor check. > > > > Add SPL_DM_HASH, build the hash uclass from CONFIG_$(PHASE_)DM_HASH and use > > CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(DM_HASH) when selecting the FIT hash implementation. This > > lets SPL FIT verification use a UCLASS_HASH provider without requiring the > > U-Boot proper hash uclass. > > > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: James Hilliard <[email protected]> > > --- > > Changes v2 -> v3: > > - Remove the bare software-hash fallback scope > > (suggested by Simon Glass) > > - Document that SPL_DM_HASH needs a hardware provider unless a > > phase-aware software hash provider is added > > (suggested by Simon Glass) > > --- > > boot/image-fit.c | 50 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- > > drivers/crypto/hash/Kconfig | 13 ++++++++++++ > > drivers/crypto/hash/Makefile | 2 +- > > 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) > > The changes in here make me worry a bit about platforms relying on the > current behavior (because of the Makefile change), did you put this > through CI? https://docs.u-boot-project.org/en/latest/develop/ci_testing.html
Looks fine to me when I ran it through CI: https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/pull/1014/checks > > -- > Tom
