Hi Mattijs, Thx for reply. I like your attitude and appreciate it. There are many topic get silent in the end.
> >> It's a bit unclear to me why it's impractical to repack the boot.img and > >> specify the appropriate address. Could you elaborate ? > > > > > > It is hard to ask less experience people to modify the boot img....I do > > prefer no mod is the best. Why get life so complicated, my friend? > > Sorry, In my opinion this is not a valid argument. Why is patching the > bootloader more complicated than repacking the boot.img ? > No, i mean repacking or modding boot.img is a very complicated thing for less experience(not me! well, lazy, in other words, thats me!) people. Sorry to get you confused. Lets get it clear, for not going back and forth, in case of typo. If you are talking about modding/repacking is easier than changing uboot logic. Or there is already a similar logic exists, only make a small mod for bootimg will solve the chain loading kind of thing. And then my opinion is, it might be a short term solution for engineer and as the shorter the better. I prefer to make "uboot for dummy" in mind. And it benefits those lineage os phone user (including me) who also wanted to dual boot other os. And easily update official los bootimg without any modding for every time; that's why I hate dtbo partition. If you agreed making uboot change is easier than modding bootimg then we are same side, man. Btw my proposed change of the loadaddr and kernel_addr_r conflict issue can work like a band-aid short term solution and easily get reverted. I forsee the proper fix is hard to get ready in short term. Thx for letting me explain how I thought. Appreciated! Regards, George
