On 16:06 Mon 06 May , Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Dear Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD, > > On Mon, 6 May 2013 15:54:35 +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > wrote: > > > > Could you please adopt a nicer language? You are very aggressive... and > > > at that the same time completely wrong. Your comments make it entirely > > > clear that you haven't even read the comments at the top of file. > > I did but still think we can handle it in C > > > > and need to handle by barebox itself when flashing > > The image is pushed to the target through X-modem, directly talking to > the ROM code of the SoC. Do you want the kwboot tool to prepare the > image? It seems to me like it makes a lot more sense to have a tool to > prepare the image. yes a you want to re-flash barebox itself and you will do for ddr and I do not want to care about all of this blob stuff twht the board already known > > Remember also that this tool is needed to *extract* existing images. > And you haven't explained how you intend to do this without a proper > userspace tool such as kwbimage. why extract? you generated at runtime > > And by the way, the tool is a simple userspace tool written entirely in > C, I'm not sure to see where the problem is. > > Quoting Sascha, an e-mail for this thread: > > """ > Anyway, what we do on i.MX doesn't really scale anymore since the more > complicated features of the image format can't be used with C > structures. I'm working on replacing this with a imx-image tool. > You seem to use checksums in your images. These can't be generated > in C or CPP anyway. > """ > > Thanks, > > Thomas > -- > Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons > Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux > development, consulting, training and support. > http://free-electrons.com _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
