From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Vasut Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:47:17 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] image: Implement IH_TYPE_KERNEL_ANYLOAD In-Reply-To: <4EBC0D2B.2080705@nvidia.com> References: <1320860840-6347-1-git-send-email-swarren@nvidia.com> <201111101801.50835.marek.vasut@gmail.com> <4EBC0D2B.2080705@nvidia.com> Message-ID: <201111101847.17687.marek.vasut@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de > On 11/10/2011 10:01 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: > >> On 11/10/2011 02:58 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>>> [Description of IH_TYPE_KERNEL_ANYLOAD] > >>> > >>> just a silly question, but didn't we agree on cmd_bootz? Or is this > >>> unrelated ? > >> > >> bootz did seem to be agreed upon initially, but Wolfgang's most recent > >> response suggested that a new IH_TYPE would be acceptable, and it's a > >> lot less code to implement. At a later point, bootz could still be > >> implemented if desired. > > > > Well DAMN. I think I'll probably implement bootz, because it seems > > superior solution which I DID NEED for one of my devices for a while now > > (if noone is working on it already). I can't say what ETA will be on > > that, maybe next week, maybe two weeks. > > Out of curiosity, why doesn't this bootm feature work for you? > Admittedly you still need to wrap the zImage inside a uImage, but I > don't think that's insurmountable? Aside from that, doesn't it work > exactly like a bootz command would? Do you still have those +12bytes (sizeof(uImage header)) offset there? I don't like it. Also, I think using zImage might be plain easier. M