From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Glass Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 12:08:13 -0600 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 Hi Tom, On 5 September 2014 11:53, 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. I wonder if we could easily address that by building in the functionality to mkimage? For the common case of a kernel, FDT and ramdisk I don't see why anyone needs to write a .its file. It's just boilerplate. Regards, Simon