From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marian Balakowicz Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:04:09 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] RFC: New U-boot image format In-Reply-To: <20071220194258.D5A37248ED@gemini.denx.de> References: <20071220194258.D5A37248ED@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <476BD5E9.3030601@semihalf.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Wolfgang Denk wrote: > In message <4769258D.6090709@semihalf.com> you wrote: >> The hooks idea sounds reasonable but, the problem >> is that there isn't really any such thing like >> "main fromat processing code". >> >> The 'bootm' command code does a lot of image >> related manipulation but it's not generic or main >> format processing code. It is rather a specialized > > But it's *the* generic command for booting a Linux kernel. Right. [...] > imls would probably have it's ownset of image type hooks - while you > would register some "boot me" type of handlers with bootm, you would > register some "display me" type of handlers with imls. > > imxtract will have to be changed completely in any case. > >> And all of them process images directly, finding >> necessary information on their own. > > This is no argument for not creating some more centralized image > processing code, or is it? No, it's not. But I have doubts whether bootm is a good place for it. Maybe we should rather go for new generic command, something like 'imrun' or similar. And maybe even, move standalone application execution from bootm to a dedicated hook that'll be available from 'imrun'. This way, bootm would become strict OS booting command, potentially also available from 'imrun' via a hook. How that sounds? Cheers, Marian