From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jagan Teki Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 18:45:00 +0530 Subject: [U-Boot] Call for participation in the U-Boot Mini Summit 2014 In-Reply-To: <20140905175349.GK25506@bill-the-cat> References: <201409041701.55681.marex@denx.de> <1409932247.24184.200.camel@snotra.buserror.net> <201409051930.35133.marex@denx.de> <20140905175349.GK25506@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 5 September 2014 23:23, Tom Rini 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. Just an additional info: In fact I was advertising a lot for this possible boot scenarios [2] talk in India last year other than U-Boot Mini 2013 starting from legacy to fit. What I understand that developers are very interested and they asked more possible useful scenarios with in the fitimage stuff like loading different kernels (as part of visualization) etc. May it would be good if any one is interested to talk on that more. [1] http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/OpenSourceIndia2013 thanks! -- Jagan.