From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Vasut Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 05:47:29 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH V3] BOOT: Add "bootz" command to boot Linux zImage In-Reply-To: <20120313043053.22918202BE6@gemini.denx.de> References: <1331588061-21546-1-git-send-email-marex@denx.de> <20120313043053.22918202BE6@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <201203130547.30788.marex@denx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Dear Wolfgang Denk, > Dear Graeme Russ, > > In message you wrote: > > While we are on the subject - Do either of you think support for the x86 > > zimage/bzImage format should end up here in common code? Not that the x86 > > The common coe should be architecture-neutral. It might cann > architecture-specific routines, which may (or may not) get added > later, depending if somebody cares about adding such support. > > > (b)zImage header is unique (see arch/x86/include/asm/bootparam.h) and > > decompressing vmlinux out of an x86 (b)zImage is non-trivial given the > > header and decompression stub > > I have to admit that I never understood the fuzz about being able to > boot zImages. I see more disadvanatges than advantages for this, but > some ARM people go frenzy when this topic pops up - see recent > discussions about removal of uImage support on the AKML. Sure, but let's try to offer them a compromise. Everyone will be happy that way at least to some extent. > > Frankly: I see no benefit in adding x86 support. > > I see no benefit in adding ARM support either, but YMMV... > > Best regards, > > Wolfgang Denk Best regards, Marek Vasut