uImage target support on arm64

uImage target support on arm64

[Ramon Fried]

Hi.
I've noticed that it's not supported.
Is it on purpose ?
If not I'll be happy to add support for: make uImage
for arm64 targets.

Warm regards,
Ramon.

uImage target support on arm64

[Baruch Siach]

Hi Ramon,

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 10:05:15PM +0300, Ramon Fried wrote:
> I've noticed that it's not supported.
> Is it on purpose ?

Yes. The 32bit load address in the uImage header in pretty limited when 
applied to 64bit ARM64. Even for ARM zImage is the preferred kernel format for 
quite some time now, since it allows flexible load address, as well as 
multi-platform kernels.

> If not I'll be happy to add support for: make uImage
> for arm64 targets.

baruch

-- 
     http://baruch.siach.name/blog/                  ~. .~   Tk Open Systems
=}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
   - baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -

uImage target support on arm64

[Ramon Fried]

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 10:34 PM, Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il> wrote:
> Hi Ramon,
>
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 10:05:15PM +0300, Ramon Fried wrote:
>> I've noticed that it's not supported.
>> Is it on purpose ?
>
> Yes. The 32bit load address in the uImage header in pretty limited when
> applied to 64bit ARM64. Even for ARM zImage is the preferred kernel format for
> quite some time now, since it allows flexible load address, as well as
> multi-platform kernels.
Hi Baruch.
I though that in terms of U-boot, the new FIT image is the preferred
kernel format.
Thanks,
Ramon.
>
>> If not I'll be happy to add support for: make uImage
>> for arm64 targets.
>
> baruch
>
> --
>      http://baruch.siach.name/blog/                  ~. .~   Tk Open Systems
> =}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
>    - baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -

uImage target support on arm64

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 11:17:19PM +0300, Ramon Fried wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 10:34 PM, Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il> wrote:
> > Hi Ramon,
> >
> > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 10:05:15PM +0300, Ramon Fried wrote:
> >> I've noticed that it's not supported.
> >> Is it on purpose ?
> >
> > Yes. The 32bit load address in the uImage header in pretty limited when
> > applied to 64bit ARM64. Even for ARM zImage is the preferred kernel format for
> > quite some time now, since it allows flexible load address, as well as
> > multi-platform kernels.
> Hi Baruch.
> I though that in terms of U-boot, the new FIT image is the preferred
> kernel format.

u-boot keeps inventing new image formats for itself that are specific
to u-boot.  Not every boot loader is u-boot.

For 32-bit ARM, zImage has _always_ since day one been the preferred
format.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up