On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Alexander Sack <a...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:01 PM, 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). >>>> --- >>>> tasks/kernel.mk | 4 ++-- >>>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> 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? > > I am happy to have a discussion about our default android bootloader > at LDS in budapest. > > IIRC, one blueprint that John Rigby wanted to own is about adding > fastboot support to u-boot ... maybe thats a good compromise instead > of lk?
That would be very nice. There's actually some documentation in u-boot about fastboot (a README). I wonder if there's some support already? > > > -- > > - Alexander > _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
