On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 10:54:24 +0200 Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villem...@prevas.dk> wrote:
> > It's very much like the FAT filesystem case: if you have U-Boot proper > > and your Linux kernel image in a FAT filesystem, > > No, this is very much _not_ like the above. In this paragraph, you > combine "U-Boot proper and your Linux kernel", imposing an implicit > assumption that they are stored in the same way. Sure, _if_ both these > items are stored in squashfs images (possibly the same, possibly > distinct), then the thing that loads the respective images obviously > needs squashfs (or FAT, or whatnot) support. > > My point is that it's possible that, say, U-Boot proper is stored in a > FAT file system, and the kernel is stored in a UBI volume. So SPL needs > FAT support. Why should I be forced to compile FAT support into U-Boot > proper if U-Boot proper never needs to access a FAT filesystem? And the > same for squashfs. Or any of the drivers or DM_ frameworks that do that > "depends on" or "select". Ah, I absolutely agree that it should be possible to have Squashfs in both SPL and U-Boot proper, or only in SPL or only in U-Boot proper. It was not clear in your initial e-mail that this was the issue you were pointing. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
