Hi Tom,
On 5 September 2014 11:53, Tom Rini trini@ti.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:30:35PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
[snip]
It's easier to work with than fitImage.
In which way?
In most developer work flows at least zImage then uImage then fitImage are the easiest to work with, in that order, for ARM. For ARM64 Image in the next release will probably release uImage as the easiet to work with.
fitImage seems useful in a lot of deployment scenarios. Having to craft up a good skeleton device tree in most cases is an annoying to overcome barrier for a development workflow.
I wonder if we could easily address that by building in the functionality to mkimage? For the common case of a kernel, FDT and ramdisk I don't see why anyone needs to write a .its file. It's just boilerplate.
Regards, Simon