From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 11:13:50 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] fs/squashfs: new filesystem In-Reply-To: References: <20200709175148.17193-1-joaomarcos.costa@bootlin.com> <20200709175148.17193-2-joaomarcos.costa@bootlin.com> <377389bc-a9ad-5271-ec1e-3df3c4053ca2@prevas.dk> <20200710102933.11a61099@windsurf> Message-ID: <20200710111350.4ef91b67@windsurf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 10:54:24 +0200 Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > > It's very much like the FAT filesystem case: if you have U-Boot proper > > and your Linux kernel image in a FAT filesystem, > > No, this is very much _not_ like the above. In this paragraph, you > combine "U-Boot proper and your Linux kernel", imposing an implicit > assumption that they are stored in the same way. Sure, _if_ both these > items are stored in squashfs images (possibly the same, possibly > distinct), then the thing that loads the respective images obviously > needs squashfs (or FAT, or whatnot) support. > > My point is that it's possible that, say, U-Boot proper is stored in a > FAT file system, and the kernel is stored in a UBI volume. So SPL needs > FAT support. Why should I be forced to compile FAT support into U-Boot > proper if U-Boot proper never needs to access a FAT filesystem? And the > same for squashfs. Or any of the drivers or DM_ frameworks that do that > "depends on" or "select". Ah, I absolutely agree that it should be possible to have Squashfs in both SPL and U-Boot proper, or only in SPL or only in U-Boot proper. It was not clear in your initial e-mail that this was the issue you were pointing. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com