[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 3/3] image: Allow images to indicate they're loadable at any address

[Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>]

> Dear Nicolas Pitre,
> 
> In message <alpine.LFD.2.02.1111071942150.3307@xanadu.home> you wrote:
> > > But as you said yourself, the (raw) kernel is not relocatable.  It
> > > gets loaded and started at pre-defined (at image build time)
> > > addresses.  Only the kernel wrapper adds the complexity you are
> > > complaining about.  Drop it, then.
> > 
> > Many of us insist on preserving that complexity.  From our point of
> > view, it is u-Boot which is too complex and should drop its uImage
> > complexity.
> 
> Insisting without giving explanations about the reasons is not exactly
> a constructive form of a discussion.  Actually it is no discussion at
> all.

Ok, so guys ... let me ask a stupid question:

Will it be a problem to extend bootm (if not already done) to load zImages 
directly, with -z option for example ? Won't that satisty both parties -- 
Wolfgang because the "better" solution will still be there (uImage) -- and Nico 
so he can load his "worse" solution (zImage).

And please don't flame me about this "worse" and "better" stuff, you get the 
idea.

M

> 
> > But instead of asking you to drop u-Boot's complexity, I'm only asking
> > for u-Boot to let both methods to coexist and work.
> 
> Ok, we can make a deal on such a base.  See the suggestion inmy
> previous message.
> 
> > Given that the zImage "complexity" is not going away because we insist
> > on keeping it, either we find a middle ground such as Stephen's patches,
> > or we advocate for a different bootloader on ARM.
> > 
> > Do you never happend to compromize once in a while?
> 
> In my understanding, compromize is not a one-sided business.
> 
> It is actually easy to convince me, but it needs facts and arguments,
> not mere insisting on preconceived statements or plain extortion.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Wolfgang Denk