On Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Graeme Russ wrote: > Hi Brendan, > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Brendan Conoboy <blc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 03/26/2013 06:09 PM, Graeme Russ wrote: > >> > >> I've had a quick glance at the U-Boot source and I think the newer > >> 'FIT' image may be a better path to follow. In common/image.c you will > >> find fit_image_get_load() and in common/cmd_bootm.c you will find > >> bootm_start() and bootm_load_os(). Teasing apart these functions, it > >> looks like fit_image_get_load() looks for a "load" property > >> (FIT_LOAD_PROP) in the FDT first, then in the FIT image (if the FDT > >> returns a NULL load address). > >> > >> Now you can set properties in the FDT in U-Boot (fdt set <path> <prop> > >> [<val>]) > >> > >> So have a common FIT image with a common FDT and use U-Boot to tweak > >> the FDT properties such as the kernel load address > > > > > > I'd love to, but we don't ship uboot for a number of our boards. We are > > limited to the functionality provided by the firmware provided. FIT is not > > universal. > > Well at least you can have a common image for all U-Boot boards :) > > I suppose the 64-byte header per-board would work. Ugly, but not as > ugly as some of the other options. > > You could also make a small mod to U-Boot to allow the load address of > legacy images to be changed via a command to make the hack slightly > less ugly What about simply using zImage directly? U-Boot has supported the bootz command for quite a while now. I've beel claming for _years_ that the uImage file format is broken. But Mr U-Boot would not hear it. Nicolas _______________________________________________ arm mailing list arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
