On 12:37 Fri 04 Dec , Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 07:51:27PM +0100, Alessandro Rubini wrote: > > > Should we hide the different handling by providing an x86 specific > > > version of the "bootm" command or should we add a new command that > > > deals with bzImage's special requirements? > > > > I'd use "mkimage" on the bzImage file to make an uImage, with name > > string, checksum and the rest of meta information (is load address > > applicable to the crappy 16-bit processor of the eighties?) > > I'm not really a friend of the uImage format, I think shouldn't > introduce it on even more architectures. uImage is usefull in lots of case specilly when you want complex boot or update (I do it for a long time new U-Boot format too) But I agree that if we do not need why force it We need to keep this choice IMHO Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ u-boot-v2 mailing list u-boot-v2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/u-boot-v2
