On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 12:08:13PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On 5 September 2014 11:53, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:30:35PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > [snip] > >> > It's easier to work with than fitImage. > >> > >> In which way? > > > > In most developer work flows at least zImage then uImage then fitImage > > are the easiest to work with, in that order, for ARM. For ARM64 Image > > in the next release will probably release uImage as the easiet to work > > with. > > > > fitImage seems useful in a lot of deployment scenarios. Having to craft > > up a good skeleton device tree in most cases is an annoying to overcome > > barrier for a development workflow. > > I wonder if we could easily address that by building in the > functionality to mkimage? For the common case of a kernel, FDT and > ramdisk I don't see why anyone needs to write a .its file. It's just > boilerplate.
Maybe. Or at least add in an example that doesn't do any reloc to it AND make it clear that's what it does. Looking over my normally lost boilerplate its file, it's kernel_noload that doesn't relocate things around to the load/entry point so a generic example could be made. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
