From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Heiko Schocher Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:03:29 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] common, image: introduce new uimage types In-Reply-To: <20120116085101.B216817133E1@gemini.denx.de> References: <1326613549-23724-1-git-send-email-hs@denx.de> <201201151230.02849.vapier@gentoo.org> <4F13C325.3010200@denx.de> <20120116085101.B216817133E1@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <4F13E7E1.30808@denx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hello Wolfgang, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Heiko Schocher, > > In message <4F13C325.3010200@denx.de> you wrote: >>>> - ubootimage >>>> U-Boot image >>>> - splimage >>>> SPL image >>>> - dfenvimage >>>> Default Environment image >>>> - ublheader >>>> TI davinci UBL header image >>> for ... ? >> Oh, right, forgotten to add this in the commit message. >> >> They are needed for cam_enc_4xx update: >> >> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/136165/ >> >> There, the UBL-header, SPL-image, U-Boot image and an default image >> are wrapped in one FIT image. > > But this is conceptually broken. The IH_TYPE_* definitions are > actually only relevant for legacy images. > > FIX images use an XML based, extendable data format. The whole idea > of this is that we do NOT have to change to code when anybody needs a > new (probably private) entry or type or whatever. > > In your case, it should be possible to use an existing image type > (say, IH_TYPE_FIRMWARE) for your code, and use other distinguishing > marks to determine which parts you work on. Probably it makes sense > to define your own entry for each of the parts. Then only your own > code needs to understand this. Yep, you are right, rework this. bye, Heiko -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany