Hi Tom, On 24 May 2014 06:21, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:57:34PM -1000, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On 21 May 2014 10:46, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:10:50PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > >> Dear Tom Rini, > > >> > > >> In message <20140521195824.GE1752@bill-the-cat> you wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Something that Rob mentioned to me at ELC, and others have mentioned > > >> > before is that it would be nice if 'bootm' (which says "boot > application > > >> > image stored in memory" in the help, even) would just work with > zImage > > >> > or Image or whatever is spit directly out of the kernel. > > >> > > >> I don;t think this is a good idea. "application image" is supposed to > > >> mean "one of the U-Boot image formats", which means the old legacy > > >> image format (with the 64 byte header), or FIT images. To boot a > > >> zImage file, we have the "bootz" command. > > > > > > Yes, it's historically meant something with an essentially (technically > > > no, practically, yes) U-Boot centric header on it. But that's not what > > > the help text says. And yes we have bootz for zImages and I added > booti > > > for Image images. That resulted in "You mean I have to type different > > > things for arm and arm64? *sigh*" when explaining this in person. > > > > > >> I also think such a patch is pushing into the wrong direction. We > > >> should rather try and improve the kernel support for FIT images. > > > > > > That's neither here nor there. You can create and boot FIT images > > > today, anywhere it's enabled (including arm64). You can do the same > > > with legacy images (which also resulted in sighs when I mentioned > this). > > > The kernel doesn't want any of this in the kernel tree. Developers > want > > > to have as few steps between "build my kernel" and "now I'm testing my > > > kernel". Adding in "create / grab stub FIT file, run mkimage" results > > > in more unhappy developers. > > > > Unless I'm imagining it, some years ago I could type 'make fit_image' > > or similar for the kernel and get an image ready to boot. Did someone > > remove that feature from Linux and expect the number of steps needed > > to build a kernel to stay the same? > > It wasn't in mainline, I'm fairly certain. Or maybe it was an arch/ppc > thing that got dropped along the way. > I took at look and now think I just imagined it, or perhaps had some patches applied. > > > It surprises me the lengths to which people are going to try to > > shoehorn .dtbs, compression, multiple dtbs, multi-arch etc. into the > > kenel zImage format. The decompression header is ugly, plus it is > > slower than doing these things in U-Boot. > > Well, with arm64 the kernel is just getting out of the business, hence > booti (or however we add Image support) and not do the zImage dance. > Does this mean a clean Image with no add-ons? Regards, Simon
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
