On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 06:46:19PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 at 18:44, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 06:38:46PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > > > On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 at 16:35, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 04:33:07PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 at 15:57, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 12:13:31PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 at 17:51, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At this time there are still major Linux distributions which by > > > > > > > > default > > > > > > > > boot using LEGACY_IMAGE_FORMAT type scripts. Add this option to > > > > > > > > DISTRO_DEFAULTS to ensure these platforms can still boot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the legacy image format exactly? Does select make it non > > > > > > > optional, can we use imply or similar here? > > > > > > > > > > > > In this case "legacy image format" is uImage-style images, rather > > > > > > than > > > > > > FIT images. And no, we can't imply it because then we'd break Debian > > > > > > (which doesn't boot on a handful of platforms now which do have > > > > > > DISTRO_DEFAULTS but don't have this). > > > > > > > > > > The distro boot stuff, which if my memory servers, is what the > > > > > DISTRO_DEFAULTS is used for, never used the uImage style kernels. > > > > > > > > The same uImage-style header is what's on top of a "boot.scr" type file. > > > > > > The distro default scripts never used that either, the whole point of > > > them was to move away from manually crafted scripts and custom formats > > > to boot a device. > > > > Maybe we're talking past each other now. If distro_bootcmd never would > > have found /boot/boot.scr, erm, OK. But the resulting U-Boot image could > > still be used by Debian (and I think others, perhaps armbian) that would > > still rather write their own logic and set the bootcmd, and relied on a > > set of standard features being enabled in any board. > > The major concern I have here is not being able to turn it off for > boards that are constrained, which is typically the older/smaller > boards like BBone, Jetson Nano etc
Right. But the initial report here was for BBone :) Given the relative few platforms that didn't already have this on, I'm not sure how much an issue it is. But that gets back to the trade-offs question too. If you're super size constrained and can't find something else too to do, then it's time to manage things more directly. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
