From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from xes-mad.com ([216.165.139.218]:57661 "EHLO xes-mad.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752091Ab0ADAy0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Jan 2010 19:54:26 -0500 Message-ID: <4B412DCE.4030509@xes-inc.com> Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 17:52:46 -0600 From: Peter Tyser MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] powerpc: Add support for ram filesystems in FIT uImages References: <1261446643-21714-1-git-send-email-ptyser@xes-inc.com> <1261446643-21714-4-git-send-email-ptyser@xes-inc.com> <20091231224439.AF5353F6D1@gemini.denx.de> <1262301038.29396.137.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20100101104449.6DAC63F6FF@gemini.denx.de> In-Reply-To: <20100101104449.6DAC63F6FF@gemini.denx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Wolfgang Denk Cc: Grant Likely , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org Hi Wolfgang, > The "new" FIT image type should become the default, and old "legacy" > images should only be generated upon special request (i. e. if some- > one needs these for compatibility with an old, not yet FIT-aware > version of the boot loader). Agreed. >> What do you think about changing the U-Boot documentation to rename >> those 2 image types to: >> 1 uImages >> 2 FIT Images > > Let's make this "uImage.old" (or "uImage.legacy" similar) and > "uImage", then. I'm in favor of keeping the old uImage format/naming the same, and calling the new image format a FIT Image. ie no mention of uImage for FIT images. >> uImages have to agree with U-Boot's header format defined in the U-Boot >> source code, so the uImage name does make sense with respect to the >> "legacy" uImages. > > Well, you can read "uImage" as "universal Image", which kind of fits > the FIT approach :-) I agree that the FIT image is a type of "universal Image", but I think "FIT image" is much more descriptive and accurate than "universal Image". The FIT naming convention is designed to match device tree naming, which has lots of meaning. eg: Flattened Device Tree (FDT) -> Flattened Image Tree (FIT) device tree source (.dts) -> image tree source (.its) device tree blob (.dtb) -> image tree blob (.itb) >> My vote would be to make the Linux FIT target rule "fitImage" and then >> update the U-Boot documentation to make obvious the differences between >> uImages and FIT images. > > I think we should not try to support both legacy and FIT images on the > same level - the idea is clearly that legacy images is the old, to be > replaced format, while FIT images is the new, to be used as standard > format. Agreed. In this sense I vote for using plain and simple "uImage" for > the (new) standard format, and marking the old format by some ".old" > or ".legacy" suffix. I disagree here. I don't think calling FIT images "FIT uImages" adds much value and it would add confusion as there are now multiple uImage formats that a user needs to keep straight. Keeping the legacy uImage naming/format the same, and calling the new FIT images "fitImage" (or possibly itbImage to line up with the dtbImage target) would make more sense to me. Is there a compelling reason to keep the uImage word connected to FIT images? Best, Peter