From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 12:37:49 -0700 From: "Mark A. Greer" To: Matthew McClintock Subject: Re: [RFC] New target 'cuImage' - compatibility uImage Message-ID: <20060803193749.GE25251@mag.az.mvista.com> References: <20060802223302.9667135360F@atlas.denx.de> <1154618945.5094.6.camel@localhost> <1154620934.5094.12.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1154620934.5094.12.camel@localhost> Cc: linuxppc-dev List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 11:02:14AM -0500, Matthew McClintock wrote: > On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 23:56 +0800, Li Yang wrote: > > > > If U-boot supports uncompressed kernel image in uImage, I think it > > will be better to use this scheme: > > > > u-boot header + wrapper + FDT + compressed kernel image > > > > As kernel image will be uncompressed to its loading address directly. > > While in your proposal, it needs to be moved one more time. > > > > This is an option. But, I do not see a reason why you would not still > opt to compress everything. Especially since it is already working. > Comments anyone? Yes...sort of. I believe that one of the goals is to be able to tack an fdt onto a zImage/uImage/whatever long after that image has been built. That would be simpler if the fdt wasn't compressed. A proper tool can handle this, of course, but it would be simpler and not a huge waste of space to keep the fdt uncompressed. But, as long as we have tools to view and modify the fdt that in the clump of bits, I don't really care that much. Mark