From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Detlev Zundel Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 17:57:21 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 3/3] image: Allow images to indicate they're loadable at any address In-Reply-To: <20111108155907.1E1BD13BE0C2@gemini.denx.de> (Wolfgang Denk's message of "Tue, 08 Nov 2011 16:59:07 +0100") References: <1320164902-24190-1-git-send-email-swarren@nvidia.com> <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF173F9A5035@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com> <20111107202633.92FE4189301B@gemini.denx.de> <201111072204.41980.marek.vasut@gmail.com> <20111107222736.EA07D189301B@gemini.denx.de> <20111107232514.C0E7C189301B@gemini.denx.de> <20111108083326.EB9C013BE08A@gemini.denx.de> <20111108155907.1E1BD13BE0C2@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hello Wolfgang and Nicolas, please allow me to barge in at that point. As I strongly believe that we all want to advance our software in a technical sense and not spend time in flame wars - I am trying to think of ways forward from the current state of affairs. Without evaluating all the arguments individually, let me pick up Wolfgangs latest suggestion which indeed seems like a pragmatic way forward: > | I suggest the following: > | > | - I will apply Stephen's previous patches to support relative images > | as they are useful for people who want to use "proper" uImages > | (containing a raw kernel image as payload) on different boards / > | architectures. > | > | - If you want to boot zImages (with the kernel wrapper included and > | thus fully relocatable), then please feel free and submit patches to > | add support for booting zImage format in U-Boot. Then you get what > | you want, and you can use zImages directly, without the 64 byte > | uImage header that is only hindering for your usage mode. > | > | - It would be appreciated if we could get support for real uImages > | (wrapping a raw kernel image) into Linux, then. > | > | This way those who want to use zImages can do so, and those who prefer > | a different approach can have their ways, too. My hope is that we can re-start the discussion from this - which actually looks like a consensus. For the unlikely but probable case of further disagreement, I propose a vote on the mailing list as an "emergency tie breaker". As we previously did not need to resort to such a measure, we do not have a formal procedure ready for such a thing. Thinking about it a little while, it would probably make sense to have people vote on the issue that demonstrably care about the software and have invested substantial effort in it. A natural choice for such a set people are of course the custodians. So I would suggest to instantiate a poll among the custodians as such a "tie breaker" if needed. What do you think - is this a way forward? Thanks Detlev -- Perfecting oneself is as much unlearning as it is learning. -- Edsger Dijkstra -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-40 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: dzu at denx.de