From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 10:50:47 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] Call for participation in the U-Boot Mini Summit 2014 In-Reply-To: <201409041701.55681.marex@denx.de> References: <201408120245.23010.marex@denx.de> <201409041701.55681.marex@denx.de> Message-ID: <1409932247.24184.200.camel@snotra.buserror.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 17:01 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > On Wednesday, September 03, 2014 at 06:39:23 PM, Detlev Zundel wrote: > > Hi Marek, > > > > [...] > > > > > I got my talk, "Secure and flexible boot with U-Boot bootloader", > > > accepted for the main track it seems. It's mostly about "use fitImage > > > and use UBI on NAND" kind of talk, which covers introduction to > > > fitImage and storing system components on UBI/UBIFS to prevent > > > problems like silent data corruption on modern systems. > > > > Excellent! > > > > > That being said, I believe I won't be able to cover the fitImage > > > verified boot part properly, so I might as well cook a talk for the > > > u-boot summit about this advanced topic. > > > > We had a talk about that exact topic last year on the main track by > > Simon and in the mini summit by Jagan Teki[1]. In what respect will > > your talk differ from that? > > I believe there is never enough advertising when it comes to fitImage, since > we want to get rid of uImage. On the other hand, I see no point in artificially > filling the talk slots, so consider my offer only as a backup solution. Why do we want to get rid of uImage? It's easier to work with than fitImage. Or do you just mean get rid of legacy multi-image support? -Scott