On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 03:23:27PM +0200, Christian Kapeller wrote: > On 07/17/2012 02:49 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > On 13:23 Tue 17 Jul , Christian Kapeller wrote: > >> Packing barebox within an uimage gives us integrity checking. > >> > >> Generate the image with: > >> ./scripts/mkimage -A arm -O barebox -T firmware -C none -d barebox.bin -a 0xffffffff barebox.uimage > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Christian Kapeller <christian.kapeller@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > > boot it as a linux kernel > > > > it will work > > You are right, it does. But then, I am asking myself, why is there a OS > definition for 'barebox', when we aren't using it in the first place? It's derived from U-Boot where it initially was: #define IH_OS_U_BOOT 17 /* Firmware */ When renaming U-Boot to barebox this was one of the occurences of 'U_BOOT' that shouldn't have been renamed. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
