Dear Marek Vasut, On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote:
> I'm unhappy about the image generator ;-) > > Ok, now Otavio will probably hate me, but I believe it'd be much more > helpful to > convert mxsboot into part of mkimage (though this is unrelated to this > patch). > And maybe even better, study the generation of boot headers and compare it > with > mx53/mx6q ones, as mx53 ones are supported by imximage and mx28 carries > direct > predecessor of mx53 bootrom and then try to implement support into > imximage part > of mkimage. > I agree and it would be better to get rid of it however I also think we ought to focus on finishing the i.MX233 support now before start changing it. > > Either we say "i.MX28" - then > > it's clear we mean a specific FSL SoC, identified by it's product > > name. Or we say "mxs" like allover the place in the Linux and U-Boot > > code. > > Well, we can also say i.mx233/i.mx28 . MX6Q is supported by mkimage I > think (see > above). I have done this change here and queued it for the next pull request. I use MXS on some places and the i.MX233/i.MX28 on the usage message. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
