RE: [RFC] New target 'cuImage' - compatibility uImage

-----Original Message-----
From: linuxppc-dev-bounces+leoli=3Dfreescale.com@ozlabs.org
[mailto:linuxppc-dev-bounces+leoli=3Dfreescale.com@ozlabs.org] On =

Behalf
Of

Wolfgang Denk
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 6:33 AM
To: McClintock Matthew-R56630
Cc: linuxppc-dev
Subject: Re: [RFC] New target 'cuImage' - compatibility uImage
=20
In message <1154552346.5550.51.camel@localhost> you wrote:

quoted

And the new cuImage will look like this:

-------------------------------------
-	compressed uImage	  - -
- ------------------------------- - -
- - 	_start			- - -
- -	boot wrapper code	- - -
- - ----------------------------- - -
- - -	device tree	      	- - -
- - ----------------------------- - -
- - ----------------------------- - -
- - - 			      	- - -
- - - 	UNcompressed	      	- - -
- - - 	kernel image	      	- - -
- - -			      	- - -
- - ----------------------------- - -
- --------------------------------- -
-------------------------------------

=20
Please explain.
=20
In my understanding, an "uImage" file is a  image  consisting  of  an
U-Boot  header (64 bytes) followed by an (compressed or uncompressed)
Linux kernel image.
=20
So what do you mean by "compressed uImage"? If you take  an  "uImage"
file  according  to  above definition and compress it, it will not be
recognized by U-Boot.

I don't know if my understanding is exactly what Matt means.  But the
compressed uImage seems to be (u-boot header + compress(wrapper + FDT +
kernel image)), instead of original (u-boot header + compress(kernel
image)).  A better naming probably is needed to prevent misleading.

=20
And why do you need a second, "UNcompressed  kernel  image"  in  your
setup?  I  must  be missing something, because including *two* kernel
images makes no sense to me, and I don't  understand  why  you  would
want to insist of an "UNcompressed" image...
=20
Best regards,
=20
Wolfgang Denk