From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtai05.cox.net (fed1rmmtai05.cox.net [68.230.241.54]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CBAB679F5 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 06:50:19 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:44:57 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Wolfgang Denk Subject: Re: FT u-boot shim Message-ID: <20060428194457.GA458@smtp.west.cox.net> References: <20060428191124.B202B353DAC@atlas.denx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20060428191124.B202B353DAC@atlas.denx.de> Cc: "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org list" , Paul Mackerras List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 09:11:24PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > In message > Kumar Gala wrote: > > > > What I envision as the way one boots for something like u-boot is one > > of three options: > > 1. using an old u-boot + boot wrapper (bd_t -> wrapper -> kernel) > > 2. using a u-boot that is ft aware + dtb (boot command in u-boot > > takes kernel & dtb images, updates blob and passes to kernel) > > 3. using a u-boot that is ft aware + built in dtb. > > > > The issue is that for a given system/board you may need to support > > multiple or all three. This raises the question where does the .dts > > Assuming we had 2., under which circumstances would we need 3. then? Especially if we had mkuimage let you tack your dtb into the 'kernel' image. -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/