On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:53:23PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > No. You simply can't eliminate any of the above - each one has been > > negotiated through quite an amount of discussion with relevant parties > > and/or due to technical requirements and they just can't be magic'd > > away. > > > > Plus the ARM64 image format is different from our zImage format. It > > would make far *more* sense to align our Image format with our zImage > > format so existing boot loaders which look for the zImage magic numbers > > can boot plain Image files too. > > > > Moreover, since we could *never* align zImage with the ARM64 format, > > why on earth would we want to start using the ARM64 format for the > > Image format? > > I'm not talking about zImage. I'm talking about Image files only. The > arm64 Image header could be added to ARM Image files and that would > not hurt or change a thing for existing users. The cost is 64 bytes. No it isn't. The cost is 64-bytes *and* user confusion with two completely different "headers" for no reason what so ever. Why use the ARM64 version and then have it *block* existing boot loaders which look for the zImage magic from being able to boot an Image. It's a much saner idea to use the ARM32 zImage header than to use the ARM64 version - or nothing at all. -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: now at 9.7Mbps down 460kbps up... slowly improving, and getting towards what was expected from it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
