Andy, On 14 July 2017 at 17:30, Andy Yan <andys...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi: > > 2017-07-13 15:33 GMT+08:00 Bin Chen <bin.c...@linaro.org>: > >> Hi Tom, >> >> Thanks for the review. >> >> On 13 July 2017 at 04:25, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:56:04PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote: >> > >> > > It's my understanding that we are supposed to use booti, instead of >> > bootm, >> > > for arm64 image. But booti lacks of android image support. Bootm has >> > > the andriod image support but lack of the arm64 image handling. >> > > >> > > So, what is suppose the right way of booting an android arm64 image? >> > > or, should we create a separate command? >> > > >> > > This patch is an invitation for that discussion. >> > > >> > > It *hacked* the booti command and it aslo assume the dtb is in the >> > second area >> > > of android boot image. It also has other belives like u-boot should be >> > > in control of where to put the kernnel/ramdisk/dtb images so it >> ignores >> > > the value specified in the android images. >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Bin Chen <bin.c...@linaro.org> >> > >> > So, booti is very much for the "Image" format described in the Linux >> > kernel in Documentation/arm64/booting.txt. One can (and people have) >> > used bootm on aarch64 for "uImage" style kernels and FIT kernels, and I >> > would see being able to boot an aarch64 Android image with bootm as the >> > way to go forward. >> >> >> Are you suggesting that we should use bootm path, instead of booti? >> >> I have two questions regarding this: >> >> 1. currently arm64 kernel don't have a uImage kernel target. And I'm not >> sure >> if adding that will be something that is wanted and/or sensible. >> >> > It seems that bootm doesn't always require a uImage kernel. Consider we > use bootm to boot a ARM32 based android boot.img. > we pack the zImage in boot.img directly, without make it to uImage . > You are right! > 2. bootm path doesn't have the logic that is currently in the booti, such >> as the >> kernel relocation. >> >> Also, one other question raised during internal discussion was why the >> booti >> was created in the first place, if we could have had that implemented in >> the >> bootm path. >> >> >> >> > The analogy would be that we use bootm for Android >> > on arm not bootz. Thanks! >> > >> > -- >> > Tom >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Bin >> _______________________________________________ >> U-Boot mailing list >> U-Boot@lists.denx.de >> https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot >> > > -- Regards, Bin _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
