Mark Jackson wrote: > Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > > Mark Jackson wrote: > >>> We do NOT want to do everything that is possible, but only what is > >>> reasonable. > >> Exactly ... otherwise where do you stop ? JPG, GIF, TIFF, PNG, etc ? > >> We're *only* meant to be showing a simply boot up image (not view lots > >> of different sized photos or movies !!), in a very controlled > >> environment (i.e. no "user" options ... just what the designers want / > >> require). > > > > Why not do it even simpler? Drop BMP and generate an image matching the > > native format of the LCD controller at compile time :-) > > Not sure if you're serious, but that'd reduce some of the functionality I was > expecting to use.
Well, it was just a thought that struck me, so I'm not going to claim I considered all the pros and cons. > My splashimage is stored in a particular, separate flash partition, and I'm > intending to allow end-users to change the boot logo (via a userspace app ?) > to customise / personalise the unit as they require (e.g. their own company > logo). You can still do this if the userspace app knows how to generate an image in the correct format -- I'm not arguing against storing the image in a separate flash partition or anything like that. I just think it might be possible to reduce the run-time size and complexity of u-boot by being more strict about the image format. You could also add support for PNG, JPEG and any format you want to the userspace app -- this will probably be much easier than adding similar support to u-boot itself. > Hard-coding the image would render this impossible. Of course. But hard-coding the image _format_ isn't the same thing. In a way, we're already using a hard-coded image format, but it's one that is easy to generate for the host, not one that's easy to display by the target. Haavard _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
