On 01/04/2013 09:58:28 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
Dear Scott Wood,
> On 01/03/2013 11:19:35 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Dear Scott Wood,
> >
> > > On 12/26/2012 12:26:13 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > > Dear Otavio Salvador,
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 11:08 PM, Marek Vasut
<ma...@denx.de>
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > Adjust the NAND partitioning layout so that there is a
> >
> > separate
> >
> > > > partition
> > > >
> > > > >> > for the ramdisk and fdt blob on the NAND.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> A partition for a ramdisk? maybe initramfs or initrd might
be
> > > >
> > > > better?
> > > >
> > > > > Separate ramdisk (initrd).
> > > >
> > > > So maybe name it 'initrd' in the partition table?
> > >
> > > Why bias users against using initramfs instead?
> >
> > I'm not biasing users against initramfs, but some users simply
want
> > separate
> > ramdisk outside of the kernel.
>
> initramfs and initrd are different ways of formatting a ramdisk.
It's
> orthogonal to whether it's separate from the kernel image.
True, so what is the discussion here about anyway? I fail to see the
point -- is
there a problem with the patch or not? If not, please apply for .01
release.
I have no problem with it. My point was that "ramdisk" is a better
name than "initrd".
-Scott
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
