[LEDE-DEV] [PATCH v5 2/3] ipq806x: Add support for new device: tew827dru

[Mathias Kresin]

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