From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from comal.ext.ti.com (comal.ext.ti.com [198.47.26.152]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 883D3E015E3 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 06:00:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dflxv15.itg.ti.com ([128.247.5.124]) by comal.ext.ti.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id r8OD0rQX013526 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:00:53 -0500 Received: from DLEE71.ent.ti.com (dlee71.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.114]) by dflxv15.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r8OD0rDG007696 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:00:53 -0500 Received: from dflp32.itg.ti.com (10.64.6.15) by DLEE71.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.114) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.342.3; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:00:53 -0500 Received: from [172.24.52.224] (dbdp20.itg.ti.com [172.24.170.38]) by dflp32.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r8OD0mLv016366; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:00:50 -0500 Message-ID: <52418D00.8060904@ti.com> Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 09:00:48 -0400 From: Tom Rini Organization: Texas Instruments User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Denys Dmytriyenko References: <1379989631-8098-1-git-send-email-denis@denix.org> <1379989631-8098-4-git-send-email-denis@denix.org> <78C276BE-E2AF-46CF-9931-4247D6182123@ti.com> <20130924043924.GJ4390@edge> In-Reply-To: <20130924043924.GJ4390@edge> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Cc: "meta-ti@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] ti33x, ti43x, omap-a15: switch KERNEL_IMAGETYPE to zImage by default X-BeenThere: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-ti layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:00:55 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 09/24/2013 12:39 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 03:36:47AM +0000, Cooper Jr., Franklin wrote: >> What is the benefit of this switch? >> >> Although outdated a lot of posts talking about uImage vs zImage seems to >> favor uImage due to additional functionality that it provides. > > I guess this is a more generic question addressed to Tom... There are two sides to it. On the zImage side, it's what the kernel produces normally, without needing other tools, so it's vastly preferred by the majority of kernel developers. On the production side, uImages provide useful things like a checksums and the ability to detect overlaps. If we enabled FIT images, we could go so far as to allow for cryptographically signed images and configurations (what FIT calls a kernel+fdt(+optional ramdisk)). For community oriented things like this, zImage is best and for production, it's up to the designer on what's important and what's not. -- Tom