> Dear Nicolas Pitre, > > In message <alpine.lfd.2.02.1111071942150.3...@xanadu.home> you wrote: > > > But as you said yourself, the (raw) kernel is not relocatable. It > > > gets loaded and started at pre-defined (at image build time) > > > addresses. Only the kernel wrapper adds the complexity you are > > > complaining about. Drop it, then. > > > > Many of us insist on preserving that complexity. From our point of > > view, it is u-Boot which is too complex and should drop its uImage > > complexity. > > Insisting without giving explanations about the reasons is not exactly > a constructive form of a discussion. Actually it is no discussion at > all.
Ok, so guys ... let me ask a stupid question: Will it be a problem to extend bootm (if not already done) to load zImages directly, with -z option for example ? Won't that satisty both parties -- Wolfgang because the "better" solution will still be there (uImage) -- and Nico so he can load his "worse" solution (zImage). And please don't flame me about this "worse" and "better" stuff, you get the idea. M > > > But instead of asking you to drop u-Boot's complexity, I'm only asking > > for u-Boot to let both methods to coexist and work. > > Ok, we can make a deal on such a base. See the suggestion inmy > previous message. > > > Given that the zImage "complexity" is not going away because we insist > > on keeping it, either we find a middle ground such as Stephen's patches, > > or we advocate for a different bootloader on ARM. > > > > Do you never happend to compromize once in a while? > > In my understanding, compromize is not a one-sided business. > > It is actually easy to convince me, but it needs facts and arguments, > not mere insisting on preconceived statements or plain extortion. > > Best regards, > > Wolfgang Denk _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
