Dear Prafulla Wadaskar,
In message 73173D32E9439E4ABB5151606C3E19E202E121613D@SC-VEXCH1.marvell.com you wrote:
I have gone through all the feedback that you have provided for this entire patch series. Thanks a lot...
Thank you for your pat6ience. Sorry it's such a long story for such a apparently small addition.
I tried to maintain the flow in the series for easy understanding, but I failed :-(
Actually you did not. I just did not agree with some implementation details. And the changes need beter documentation.
With these patches, new code looks differently compared to original code. So I feel instead of providing incremental patches- I should provide
- basic mkimge framework patch,
- mkimage: add: uimage support patch,
- mkimage: add: fit image support patch,
Um... these three must never be split. I mean, we should not add any patch that breaks the (existing) mkimage support.
- mkimage: add: Kirkwood boot image support patch.
I will do this in my next post. I hope you will like it. If you have any inputs in this regard or you think this is bad plan, pls kindly let me know.
I'm not sure if this will be an improvement. I guess it will make it even harder to understand the changes.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk