Hi Wolfgang,
The "new" FIT image type should become the default, and old "legacy"
images should only be generated upon special request (i. e. if some-
one needs these for compatibility with an old, not yet FIT-aware
version of the boot loader).
Agreed.
What do you think about changing the U-Boot documentation to rename
those 2 image types to:
1 uImages
2 FIT Images
Let's make this "uImage.old" (or "uImage.legacy" similar) and
"uImage", then.
I'm in favor of keeping the old uImage format/naming the same, and
calling the new image format a FIT Image. ie no mention of uImage for
FIT images.
<snip>
uImages have to agree with U-Boot's header format defined in the U-Boot
source code, so the uImage name does make sense with respect to the
"legacy" uImages.
Well, you can read "uImage" as "universal Image", which kind of fits
the FIT approach :-)
I agree that the FIT image is a type of "universal Image", but I think
"FIT image" is much more descriptive and accurate than "universal
Image". The FIT naming convention is designed to match device tree
naming, which has lots of meaning. eg:
Flattened Device Tree (FDT) -> Flattened Image Tree (FIT)
device tree source (.dts) -> image tree source (.its)
device tree blob (.dtb) -> image tree blob (.itb)
My vote would be to make the Linux FIT target rule "fitImage" and then
update the U-Boot documentation to make obvious the differences between
uImages and FIT images.
I think we should not try to support both legacy and FIT images on the
same level - the idea is clearly that legacy images is the old, to be
replaced format, while FIT images is the new, to be used as standard
format.
Agreed.
In this sense I vote for using plain and simple "uImage" for
the (new) standard format, and marking the old format by some ".old"
or ".legacy" suffix.
I disagree here. I don't think calling FIT images "FIT uImages" adds
much value and it would add confusion as there are now multiple uImage
formats that a user needs to keep straight. Keeping the legacy uImage
naming/format the same, and calling the new FIT images "fitImage" (or
possibly itbImage to line up with the dtbImage target) would make more
sense to me. Is there a compelling reason to keep the uImage word
connected to FIT images?
Best,
Peter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
