From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ahmad Draidi Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 09:08:01 +0300 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] image: Fix Android boot image support In-Reply-To: References: <1413521529-1697-1-git-send-email-ar2000jp@gmail.com> <1413910518-26288-1-git-send-email-ar2000jp@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3442084.mvHBCZSLVA@sandy> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hello, Mr. Glass. On Wednesday 22 October 2014 11:29:00 AM Simon Glass wrote: > One little nit below but it looks OK to me. I'm assume that no one > would want to replace the command line completely? > In some setups, one image can be used with several versions, or even different boards of hardware. The bootloader passes a command line argument to specify this. Also, the header file for the mkbootimg specifies that the "kernel_args[] is appended to the kernel commandline". So I thought this would make it consistent with other bootloaders, and the spec. > I hope you can write a test too. Re your comment about not wanting to > change the code much - if we go that way the code will get really > ugly. When you add features you often need to refactor. When there are > tests, it becomes easier to know you have not broken things. Thanks for the tip. I'll try to write a test if I get the time. One thing comes to mind. To be able to write a test, we'll need an image to test against. I think pulling in the mkbootimg tool is the right move. The other option I can think of is bundling a small dummy image with U-Boot, which I think is a bit ugly. What do you think? > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass > nit: return -ENOMEM - suggest adding a comment to > android_image_get_kernel() so its args and return value are > documented. > Thank you. I'll send in a new version soon. > Regards, > Simon Regards, Ahmad Draidi