From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:08:20 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Kbuild: Implement CONFIG_UIMAGE_KERNEL_NOLOAD Message-Id: <20120307190820.GD27213@game.jcrosoft.org> List-Id: References: <1331080238-1524-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <1331080238-1524-2-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <20120307180815.GA27213@game.jcrosoft.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Nicolas Pitre Cc: Stephen Warren , Michal Marek , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Michal Simek , Guan Xuetao , Mike Frysinger , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mundt , uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Russell King , Haavard Skinnemoen , "David S. Miller" , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Hans-Christian Egtvedt On 13:50 Wed 07 Mar , Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > On 17:30 Tue 06 Mar , Stephen Warren wrote: > > > This allows the user to use U-Boot's mkimage's -T kernel_noload option > > > if their arch Kconfig allows it, and they desire. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren > > > --- > > > The next patch enables this new CONFIG_ALLOW_ option for ARM. I assume > > > that some other architectures will also be able to enable it, but I'm > > > not familiar enough with any to know which. > > I'm going to repeat. I don't think any impromevent here. > > You know what? I agree with you... on a conceptual level only though. > > In reality, some people are are just too used to it, either for > emotional reasons or simply because that's what was there before so they > simply perpetuated it without thinking further, or whatever. REmoving > that support would just upset a lot of people. And frankly we have > better things to do than starting a flamewar over this. My concern is this new feature is available on new version of U-Boot only and people that does not have it and built the uImage are going to ask the question. Why bla bla bla.... Where people are supposed to RTFM I do do not want to have the answer this and manage this. > > So the next best thing is to make this u-Boot stuff well contained in a > common place and make sure it doesn't spread incoherently over multiple > architecture's directories and makefiles. This way the u-Boot cruft > won't be the ARM maintainer, or the PPC maintainer, or the SPARC > maintainer, or any other architecture maintainer's business, but the > responsibility of those who do care about it without affecting anyone > else. Ditto here People does not read the doc they as lazy and I do not want to manage this. > > > And the uImage format here is called the legacy format where now U-Boot > > support a new format based on DT format. > > > > Will you plan to add it too? > > Why not if someone cares? At least this will be done only > once, centrally, without having to involve architecture maintainers. So you manage this because I will not answer one e-mail that ask for help Because for my point of view RTFM or boot the zImage Best Regards, J.