Dear Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD,

On 10:33 Wed 29 Feb     , Tim Bird wrote:

quoted

On 02/29/2012 10:14 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:

quoted

On 08:58 Wed 29 Feb     , Stephen Warren wrote:

quoted

Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote at Wednesday, February 29, 2012 

5:30 AM:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

On 17:03 Tue 28 Feb     , Stephen Warren wrote:

quoted

uImage files typically encode a single absolute load and entry
address. This is inconvenient when attempting to share that uImage
across multiple SoCs with different physical RAM addresses. Recent
versions of mkimage implement a "kernel_noload" image type which
encodes no absolute load address, and a relative entry address.
This works well for uImage-wrapped ARM zImages, since they are
relocatable.

This is enabled by commit b9b50e89d317c58becd0e2d7fac2e21e3a81dd0a
"image: Implement IH_TYPE_KERNEL_NOLOAD" in U-Boot.

Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <redacted>
---
I assume I should put this into the ARM patch tracker if it's OK?

Again a new option for uImage no why not just boot the zImage

in this case the uImage is useless

U-Boot doesn't support zImage at present.

A patch was posted to support it at least for ARM, but needed a little
work before it could be committed.

Sorry I see no advantage to have the uImage build by the kernel anymore
as we have a relocatable zImage

I'll even drop its support

This seems at least premature, and possibly ill-advised in general.
There are lots of U-Boot images out in the field, many of which that
are rarely updated. A lot of workflow will be disrupted unnecessarily
by a change like this.

Could you wait to drop uImage build support in the kernel until
U-Boot supports zImage, and has worked it's way into the field
for a few years?

I'm fine to keep for now on but not to add new feature

Barebox (former U-Boot v2) support zImage for quite a while and
relocable one for too.

On the other hand, noone uses barebox and you should stop with this obvious 
malice towards uboot please. I believe for most people it's easier to spend time 
only on implementing their hardware support into U-Boot, not waste time 
implementing basic components that are still missing in barebox.

Last but not least, the uImage contains additional checksum on the whole image, 
which is useful on flash media.

That said, I'm all for having uImage support in kernel and for adding this 
NOLOAD option.

Best regards,
Marek Vasut