On 11/10/2011 10:01 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 11/10/2011 02:58 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
[Description of IH_TYPE_KERNEL_ANYLOAD]
just a silly question, but didn't we agree on cmd_bootz? Or is this unrelated ?
bootz did seem to be agreed upon initially, but Wolfgang's most recent response suggested that a new IH_TYPE would be acceptable, and it's a lot less code to implement. At a later point, bootz could still be implemented if desired.
Well DAMN. I think I'll probably implement bootz, because it seems superior solution which I DID NEED for one of my devices for a while now (if noone is working on it already). I can't say what ETA will be on that, maybe next week, maybe two weeks.
Out of curiosity, why doesn't this bootm feature work for you? Admittedly you still need to wrap the zImage inside a uImage, but I don't think that's insurmountable? Aside from that, doesn't it work exactly like a bootz command would?
Do you still have those +12bytes (sizeof(uImage header)) offset there? I don't like it. Also, I think using zImage might be plain easier.
M