From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <miltonm@bga.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 13:17:07 -0500
From: Milton Miller <miltonm@bga.com>
To: msm@freescale.com, LeoLi@freescale.com,
Subject: Re: [RFC] New target 'cuImage' - compatibility uImage
Message-Id: <3115462902741b71efb4.2044897763.miltonm@bga.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

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.

milton