From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [RFC] New target 'cuImage' - compatibility uImage From: Matthew McClintock To: Milton Miller In-Reply-To: <3115462902741b71efb4.2044897763.miltonm@bga.com> References: <3115462902741b71efb4.2044897763.miltonm@bga.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 13:53:28 -0500 Message-Id: <1154631208.5094.25.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 13:17 -0500, Milton Miller wrote: > On Thu Aug 3 2006 10:30:13 AM CDT, Matthew McClintock wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 04:47 -0700, Li Yang-r58472 wrote: > > > If my understanding to Matt's idea is correct, it will be a good way, > > > IMHO. How about use the naming of uwImage(U-boot Wrapped Image) or > > > utImage(u-boot device-Tree Image). > > > > I am completely open to a better name. Anyone else care to share their > > opinion? > > Do newer versions of uboot support device tree kernels directly? If not, then > I would say make this uimage. Otherwise, I would say uzImage unless we > decide to call the wrapper that adds the tree something else, like uImage.dt. > > Or maybe its uImage and config vars say which it is. > There is an unofficial way to boot device tree kernels directly from U-Boot. There was an older method that has been in U-Boot a long time (and still is), however I just submitted a series of patches which updates that method. As far as I know the new method is liked better by Wolfgang, so maybe he will start accepted board patches based on my work? Either way, for boards with newer U-Boots (at some point) will not boot using this method. Wolfgang, care to comment? -Matthew