On Sunday 01 February 2015 02:36:06 Matthijs van Duin wrote: > On 31 January 2015 at 20:06, Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > I have configured two testing N900 devices. One with signed > > bootloader which enable omap aes support and one device with > > signed bootloader which does not enable omap aes support. > > I'm probably missing some context here, but why not just use > the one with aes support? Alternatively, one may argue that > it's the bootloader's job to provide the kernel with an > accurate device tree. (Though one may equally well argue that > it would be nice to avoid having to customize the device tree > for every feature-flavor of a processor, especially if this > depends on how it's initialized.) > Nokia X-Loader is closed source and signed. So we cannot modify it. And it is responsible for configuring L3/L4 firewall. Year ago it was possible to find on internet signed X-Loader for N900 which enable omap aes support (for testing purpose together with open source linux kernel modules), but it is unofficial and I think there only too few people who flashed it into N900 nand. If somebody needs binaries I have backup all of them. More info about that aes enabled X-Loader: http://maemo.org/community/maemo-developers/n900_aes_and_sha1-md5_hw_acceleration_drivers/ Majority of users use only official X-Loader which does not enable aes support so we cannot enable kernel modules (cause crashes). And also we cannot force users to flash some unofficial binary into their device... -- Pali Rohár pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
