On 18 April 2011 21:01, Zach Pfeffer <pfeff...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Jim Huang <jim.hu...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 18 April 2011 14:40, <patrik....@linaro.org> wrote: >>> From: Patrik Ryd <patrik....@linaro.org> >>> In the Linaro set up u-boot will look for uImage (and not for kernel). >> hi Patrik, >> Does this imply that we requires u-boot as necessary support for common LEB? >> >> I am not sure if we should introduce an abstract provider for kernel >> image, but I prefer to specify in board configurations since we might >> migrate to other 'fastboot' compatible boot loader implementations >> such as lk (little kernel) used in Qualcomm patform. > > I haven't gotten into lk too much (used it and the legacy fastboot), > but it seems that sticking with u-boot may be a better approach since > it has wider community support and better cross-platform support. Was > there a specific reason to move to lk?
hi Zach, In my opinion, if we can follow the protocol of 'fastboot' in _any_ bootloader, we can ensure the consistent approach to deploy firmware both in LEB and Android products. u-boot is a great boot loader, but it lacks of usable 'fastboot' protocol support. I would regard it as the present working implementation instead of de facto standard in LEB for Android. Thanks, -jserv _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
