From: Peter Tyser <ptyser@xes-inc.com> To: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] powerpc: Add support for ram filesystems in FIT uImages Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 17:52:46 -0600 [thread overview] Message-ID: <4B412DCE.4030509@xes-inc.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20100101104449.6DAC63F6FF@gemini.denx.de> Hi Wolfgang, > The "new" FIT image type should become the default, and old "legacy" > images should only be generated upon special request (i. e. if some- > one needs these for compatibility with an old, not yet FIT-aware > version of the boot loader). Agreed. >> What do you think about changing the U-Boot documentation to rename >> those 2 image types to: >> 1 uImages >> 2 FIT Images > > Let's make this "uImage.old" (or "uImage.legacy" similar) and > "uImage", then. I'm in favor of keeping the old uImage format/naming the same, and calling the new image format a FIT Image. ie no mention of uImage for FIT images. <snip> >> uImages have to agree with U-Boot's header format defined in the U-Boot >> source code, so the uImage name does make sense with respect to the >> "legacy" uImages. > > Well, you can read "uImage" as "universal Image", which kind of fits > the FIT approach :-) I agree that the FIT image is a type of "universal Image", but I think "FIT image" is much more descriptive and accurate than "universal Image". The FIT naming convention is designed to match device tree naming, which has lots of meaning. eg: Flattened Device Tree (FDT) -> Flattened Image Tree (FIT) device tree source (.dts) -> image tree source (.its) device tree blob (.dtb) -> image tree blob (.itb) >> My vote would be to make the Linux FIT target rule "fitImage" and then >> update the U-Boot documentation to make obvious the differences between >> uImages and FIT images. > > I think we should not try to support both legacy and FIT images on the > same level - the idea is clearly that legacy images is the old, to be > replaced format, while FIT images is the new, to be used as standard > format. Agreed. In this sense I vote for using plain and simple "uImage" for > the (new) standard format, and marking the old format by some ".old" > or ".legacy" suffix. I disagree here. I don't think calling FIT images "FIT uImages" adds much value and it would add confusion as there are now multiple uImage formats that a user needs to keep straight. Keeping the legacy uImage naming/format the same, and calling the new FIT images "fitImage" (or possibly itbImage to line up with the dtbImage target) would make more sense to me. Is there a compelling reason to keep the uImage word connected to FIT images? Best, Peter
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Tyser <ptyser@xes-inc.com> To: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] powerpc: Add support for ram filesystems in FIT uImages Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 17:52:46 -0600 [thread overview] Message-ID: <4B412DCE.4030509@xes-inc.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20100101104449.6DAC63F6FF@gemini.denx.de> Hi Wolfgang, > The "new" FIT image type should become the default, and old "legacy" > images should only be generated upon special request (i. e. if some- > one needs these for compatibility with an old, not yet FIT-aware > version of the boot loader). Agreed. >> What do you think about changing the U-Boot documentation to rename >> those 2 image types to: >> 1 uImages >> 2 FIT Images > > Let's make this "uImage.old" (or "uImage.legacy" similar) and > "uImage", then. I'm in favor of keeping the old uImage format/naming the same, and calling the new image format a FIT Image. ie no mention of uImage for FIT images. <snip> >> uImages have to agree with U-Boot's header format defined in the U-Boot >> source code, so the uImage name does make sense with respect to the >> "legacy" uImages. > > Well, you can read "uImage" as "universal Image", which kind of fits > the FIT approach :-) I agree that the FIT image is a type of "universal Image", but I think "FIT image" is much more descriptive and accurate than "universal Image". The FIT naming convention is designed to match device tree naming, which has lots of meaning. eg: Flattened Device Tree (FDT) -> Flattened Image Tree (FIT) device tree source (.dts) -> image tree source (.its) device tree blob (.dtb) -> image tree blob (.itb) >> My vote would be to make the Linux FIT target rule "fitImage" and then >> update the U-Boot documentation to make obvious the differences between >> uImages and FIT images. > > I think we should not try to support both legacy and FIT images on the > same level - the idea is clearly that legacy images is the old, to be > replaced format, while FIT images is the new, to be used as standard > format. Agreed. In this sense I vote for using plain and simple "uImage" for > the (new) standard format, and marking the old format by some ".old" > or ".legacy" suffix. I disagree here. I don't think calling FIT images "FIT uImages" adds much value and it would add confusion as there are now multiple uImage formats that a user needs to keep straight. Keeping the legacy uImage naming/format the same, and calling the new FIT images "fitImage" (or possibly itbImage to line up with the dtbImage target) would make more sense to me. Is there a compelling reason to keep the uImage word connected to FIT images? Best, Peter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-04 0:54 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 75+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2009-12-22 1:50 [PATCH v2 0/3] powerpc: Add support for FIT uImages Peter Tyser 2009-12-22 1:50 ` Peter Tyser 2009-12-22 1:50 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] powerpc: Use scripts/mkuboot.sh instead of 'mkimage' Peter Tyser 2009-12-22 1:50 ` Peter Tyser 2009-12-30 22:25 ` Grant Likely 2009-12-30 22:25 ` Grant Likely 2009-12-22 1:50 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] powerpc: Add support for creating FIT uImages Peter Tyser 2009-12-22 1:50 ` Peter Tyser 2009-12-22 3:48 ` Olof Johansson 2009-12-22 4:50 ` Peter Tyser 2009-12-30 22:57 ` Grant Likely 2009-12-30 22:57 ` Grant Likely 2010-01-01 14:18 ` Wolfgang Denk 2010-01-01 14:18 ` Wolfgang Denk 2010-01-03 5:23 ` Grant Likely 2010-01-03 5:23 ` Grant Likely 2009-12-22 1:50 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] powerpc: Add support for ram filesystems in " Peter Tyser 2009-12-22 1:50 ` Peter Tyser 2009-12-30 23:02 ` Grant Likely 2009-12-30 23:02 ` Grant Likely 2009-12-30 23:39 ` Peter Tyser 2009-12-30 23:39 ` [U-Boot] " Peter Tyser 2009-12-30 23:39 ` Peter Tyser 2009-12-31 0:01 ` Grant Likely 2009-12-31 0:01 ` [U-Boot] " Grant Likely 2009-12-31 0:01 ` Grant Likely 2009-12-31 1:10 ` Peter Tyser 2009-12-31 1:10 ` [U-Boot] " Peter Tyser 2009-12-31 1:10 ` Peter Tyser 2010-01-03 5:08 ` [U-Boot] " Grant Likely 2010-01-03 5:08 ` Grant Likely 2010-01-03 5:08 ` Grant Likely 2010-01-03 10:10 ` Wolfgang Denk 2010-01-03 10:10 ` Wolfgang Denk 2010-01-03 10:10 ` Wolfgang Denk 2010-01-04 1:07 ` Peter Tyser 2010-01-04 1:07 ` Peter Tyser 2010-01-04 1:07 ` Peter Tyser 2010-01-04 8:27 ` Grant Likely 2010-01-04 8:27 ` Grant Likely 2010-01-04 8:27 ` Grant Likely 2009-12-31 8:01 ` Peter Korsgaard 2009-12-31 8:01 ` [U-Boot] " Peter Korsgaard 2009-12-31 8:01 ` Peter Korsgaard 2010-01-01 14:12 ` Wolfgang Denk 2010-01-01 14:12 ` [U-Boot] " Wolfgang Denk 2010-01-01 14:12 ` Wolfgang Denk 2010-01-03 5:18 ` Grant Likely 2010-01-03 5:18 ` [U-Boot] " Grant Likely 2010-01-03 5:18 ` Grant Likely 2010-01-03 10:15 ` Wolfgang Denk 2010-01-03 10:15 ` [U-Boot] " Wolfgang Denk 2010-01-03 10:15 ` Wolfgang Denk 2009-12-31 22:44 ` Wolfgang Denk 2009-12-31 22:44 ` Wolfgang Denk 2009-12-31 23:10 ` Peter Tyser 2009-12-31 23:10 ` Peter Tyser 2010-01-01 10:44 ` Wolfgang Denk 2010-01-01 10:44 ` Wolfgang Denk 2010-01-03 5:13 ` Grant Likely 2010-01-03 5:13 ` Grant Likely 2010-01-03 10:12 ` Wolfgang Denk 2010-01-03 10:12 ` Wolfgang Denk 2010-01-03 8:06 ` Peter Korsgaard 2010-01-03 8:06 ` Peter Korsgaard 2010-01-03 9:50 ` Wolfgang Denk 2010-01-03 9:50 ` Wolfgang Denk 2010-01-03 14:27 ` Peter Korsgaard 2010-01-03 14:27 ` Peter Korsgaard 2010-01-04 8:34 ` Grant Likely 2010-01-04 8:34 ` Grant Likely 2010-01-03 23:52 ` Peter Tyser [this message] 2010-01-03 23:52 ` Peter Tyser 2010-01-03 5:10 ` Grant Likely 2010-01-03 5:10 ` Grant Likely
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=4B412DCE.4030509@xes-inc.com \ --to=ptyser@xes-inc.com \ --cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \ --cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \ --cc=wd@denx.de \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.